alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Keith A. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff JAYNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-35859.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.*

Filed Nov. 27, 2012.

Keith A. Brown, Boise, ID, pro se.

Peter Joseph Johnson, Johnson Law Group, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*689MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Keith A. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and summary-judgment, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s excessive force claim because Brown failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Jayne’s use of force was minimal and objectively reasonable under the circumstances. *See Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (“Not every push or shove ... violates the Fourth Amendment.” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Brown failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to retaliatory motive. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment interference-with-mail claim because Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison’s mail handling policies restricting inmate-to-inmate correspondence were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. *See Turner v. Safley,*482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (discussing factors for determining whether regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests).

The district court property dismissed Brown’s due process claim regarding the revocation of his correspondence privileges because Brown failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to this claim. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is man- . datory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s claim against defendant Valdez under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. *See Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth standard of review).

Brown’s contentions concerning discovery and severance are unpersuasive.

We do not consider arguments and evidence raised for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
TRENTON OFFICE

Clarkson S. Fisher US. Courthouse402 East State Street. Room 2020Trenton, NJ 08608

REPLY TO: TRENTON

TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

(Please complete this form and submit to the Court for approval)

Name: 7. hfJt-i’- We

Case Caption: 14Th t/. CZ4-Los Attrc!Travel Dates: (May be nonspecific if confidentiality is required). o2.f, -ø/ I

a,&

Purpose of Travel: (Destination/reason for trip. May be nonspecific if confidentiality is required).

Q44 S dA

-(o

Pursuant to Section 702 ofthe Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Public Law

102-572, 106 Stat. 4506, you are hereby authorized to obtain government travel rates for the

above-described trip in connection with your representation under the Criminal Justice Act.

You are authorized to contact Omega World Travel at 1-866-450-0401 to request

reservations and airline tickets. You must identify yourself as a CJA Panel Attorney (or Expert)

in the District ofNew Jersey and advise Omega that your tickets are to be charged to this court’saccount. You should instruct Omega where to deliver your tickets.

A copy ofthis Travel Authorization, as well asacopy ofthe airline tickets which were

provided by Omega, must be attached to your voucher for audit purposes

‘/2ofII H

Date of eq1est / U.S.D.J.

rJ

Date

Internal Reference Number_______________________

(For Court Use Only) (Rev. 4/Il)
Anthony J. Sylvester

SHERMAN WELLS SYLVESTER & STAMELMAN LLP

210 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

Florham Park, NJ 07932

(973) 302-9700

asylvester@shermanwells.com

Sean M. Murphy (pro hac vice)

Robert C. Hora (pro hac vice)

MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP

1 Chase Manhattan Plaza

New York, NY 10005

(212) 530-5000 

Attorneys for Defendants Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC

and Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, LOUIS MELLINGER,

JUDITH M. MENENDEZ, JACQUELINE M.

ROBINSON, and LINDA A. RUSSELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. ll-cv-1083 (RMB)(KMW)

and

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1611 (RMB)(KMW)

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, LOUIS MELLINGER,

JUDITH M. MENENDEZ, JACQUELINE M.

ROBINSON, LINDA A. RUSSELL, DENNIS 

RUSSELL, AND DARIN DUDEK, ON BEHALF OF 

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HARTFORD 

HEALTHCARE FUND, THE HARTFORD 

CONSERVATIVE ALLOCATION FUND, THE 

HARTFORD GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FUND, 

THE HARTFORD INFLATION PLUS FUND, THE 

HARTFORD BALANCED FUND, THE 

HARTFORD CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND, 

THE HARTFORD FLOATING RATE FUND, AND 

THE HARTFORD SMALL COMPANY FUND

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT

COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

PROPOSED ORDER

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 143-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3813
AND NOW, this ___ day of _______, 2015, upon consideration of the Motion for 

Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendants Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC and 

Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC, and having found that there are no genuine issues 

of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and that judgment is hereby ordered in favor of 

Defendants, and that any and all claims against Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

_______________________________

Hon. Renee Marie Bumb, U.S.D.J.

District of New Jersey

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 143-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3814
<PAGE>

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name/Location/Jurisdiction of Incorporation
-------------------------------------------

<S><C>
DMC Telecom U.K. LTD., Lanarkshire, Scotland State of Delaware, USA
DMC TELECOM CANADA, INC., Toronto, Canada Toronto, Canada
DMC DE MEXICO, SA. DE C.V., Mexico D.F., Mexico Mexico City, Mexico
DMC DO BRASIL LTDA., Campinas, Brazil Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
DMC TELCOM PHILIPPINES, INC., Makati City, Philippines Metro Manila, Philippines
DIGITAL MICROWAVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, New Delhi, India New Delhi, India
DIGITAL MICROWAVE NW, INC. Seattle, Washington USA State of Washington, USA
DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION LIMITED, Wellington, New Zealand Wellington, New Zealand
DIGITAL MICROWAVE ASIA PACIFIC (S) PTE, LTD., Singapore Republic of Singapore
DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION (PTY.) LIMITED, South Pretoria Republic of South Africa
</TABLE>
wern-20121231ex102




EXHIBIT 10.2


WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




Non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Werner Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) receive annual cash retainers and cash meeting fees summarized in the table below.  Such fees were approved on August 14, 2007 by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board.
	
			
	 
Fee or Retainer
	 
	

Amount

	Annual Retainer for Board Membership
	 
	$15,000
(paid in quarterly installments of $3,750 each)

	 
	 
	 

	Annual Retainer for the Audit Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000
(paid in quarterly installments of $2,500 each)

	 
	 
	 

	Annual Retainer for the Compensation Committee Chair
	 
	$5,000
(paid in quarterly installments of $1,250 each)

	 
	 
	 

	Board of Directors Meeting Fee
	 
	$2,000
(paid for each Board meeting)

	 
	 
	 

	Board Committee Meeting Fee
	 
	$2,000
(paid for each committee meeting not held on the same day as a Board meeting)






Non-employee directors are also eligible to receive equity awards, at the sole discretion of the Committee.  Equity awards are granted pursuant to the terms of the Werner Enterprises, Inc. Equity Plan and either the Form of Notice of Grant of Nonqualified Stock Option or the Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement, all of which are filed as exhibits to the Company’s Form 10-K.  To the extent required by SEC regulations, equity awards granted to the Company’s non-employee directors are reported on Form 4 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


We also reimburse each non-employee director at cost for all of their reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in connection with their attendance at Board and Board committee meetings and for other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses directly related to their Board and Board committee service.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID SATCHELL

v.

JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BERNADETTE MASON, FACILITY

MANAGER OF SCI MAHANOY; LARRY KRASNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
PHILADELPHIA,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 28 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April , 2020, the “Emergency Motion Seeking Release

from Respondent[ ’ ]s Custody” is DENIED.
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cr-00081-DMC Document 8 Filed 08/01/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 37
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A a4Dip 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

WYLMINA E. HETTINGA, AN 

INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellant, 

No. 84351 

vs. 

ALAN T. NAHOUM, INC., A NEW 

YORK CORPORATION, 

Res ondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

motion for reconsideration and a countermotion for vexatious litigant 

determination. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. 

Williams, Judge. 

Pro se appellant Wylmina Hettinga appeals an order denying a 

motion for reconsideration of default judgments entered against her codefendants below, Pacific Almaden Investments, LLC and Coastal Benefits, 

LLC. Review of the documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional 

defect. Appellant is not aggrieved by the challenged default judgments 

against Pacific Almaden and Coastal because they do not affect any rights 

of appellant. See Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 

P.2d 729, 734 (1994) (defining an aggrieved party as one whose personal or 

property rights are substantially and adversely affected by a ruling of the 

district court). Therefore, this court concludes that appellant lacks standing 

to appeal. See NRAP 3A(a); Valley Bank, 110 Nev. at 446, 874 P.2d at 734 

(this court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal where it is brought by 

an aggrieved party). Additionally, an order denying reconsideration is not 
appealable. See Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 417, 168 P.3d 1050, 1054 

(2007). Accordingly, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

1414C4.-0 J. 

Stiglich 

J. 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Wylmina E. Hettinga 

Holley Driggs/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                               [LETTERHEAD OF RCN]

                                December 5, 2001


Mr. William Savoy
Vulcan, Inc
505 Union Station
505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98104


Dear Mr. Savoy:

          Reference is made to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated
October 1, 1999, as amended from time to time (the "Stock Purchase Agreement"),
                                                    ------------------------
by and among RCN Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Vulcan
                                                           -------
Ventures Incorporated, a Washington corporation ("Vulcan") and that certain
Rights Agreement dated December 5, 2001 (the "Rights Agreement"), by and among
                                              ----------------
the Company and HSBC Bank USA, a banking corporation and trust company duly
organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of New York (the
"Right Agent"). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall
 -----------
have the meanings set forth in the Rights Agreement.

          We are writing to confirm that in conjunction with the Company's
adoption of the Rights Agreement, the Company's Board of Directors has resolved
that from and after such time as any of the Rights issued under the rights
Agreement become exercisable, Vulcan and its Affiliates (as defined in the Stock
Purchase Agreement) shall be entitled to exercise any such Rights which they may
hold or be entitled to under the Rights Agreement and acquire Common Stock or
other securities of the Company upon the exercise of such Rights without regard
to any of the restrictions otherwise set forth in the Stock Purchase Agreement,
including but not limited to those set forth in Sections 6.03 and 6.04 of the
Stock Purchase Agreement.

          Please confirm your agreement with the foregoing by signing and
returning to the undersigned the duplicate copy of this letter enclosed
herewith.

<PAGE>

          This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with
the law of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of law rules of
such state.

                                     Sincerely,

                                     RCN CORPORATION

                                     By: /s/ John J. Jones
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  John J. Jones
                                         Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                General Counsel


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
-------------------

VULCAN VENTURE INCORPORATED

By: /s/ William D. Savoy
   ----------------------------------
Name:  William D. Savoy
Title: President




[Logo of RCN]
Exhibit 10.22  Mr. Wayne
Pastore 7
Technology Park Dr. Westford,
MA  01886  February 18, 2010  Dear
Wayne:  This
letter confirms that, effective February 8, 2010, you have assumed the
role of Interim Chief Financial Officer of Sonus, Inc. (the Company).  Your duties as Interim CFO will be in addition
to your current duties as Vice President, Finance, and Corporate
Controller.  In exchange for assuming
these additional duties, you will receive:  1.           Base Salary.            An increase in your base salary from
$210,000 to $240,000, effective as of February 8, 2010.  2.           Retention Bonus.   The right to a bonus (in addition to whatever
bonus you may receive pursuant to the Companys 2010 cash incentive program) in
the amount of $125,000, payable as follows:  a.One-half ($62,500)
on the earlier of (i) the first day of employment of a new permanent CFO
or (ii) August 8, 2010 (i.e., six months from the effective date of
your appointment as Interim CFO); and  b.One-half
($62,500) upon successful transition to a new permanent CFO, which shall be not
less than three but not more than six months after such appointment (unless you
apply for and are accepted as the new permanent CFO, in which case the second
half of the bonus will be paid upon your appointment).  c.Whatever
portion of the $125,000 that has not been paid previously will be paid to you
upon the termination of your employment by the Company without Cause or by you
for Good Reason pursuant to paragraph 6 of your employment letter dated October 2,
2008 (your October 2008 Letter)  3.           If you are relieved of the additional
responsibilities of Interim CFO, such action will not constitute Good Reason as
defined in paragraph 7(b)(B) of your October 2008 Letter.  You
are, and will remain, an employee at will; nothing in this letter constitutes a
guaranty of employment for any particular period.  Capitalized terms not defined herein have the
meanings given to them in the October 2008 Letter.  Except as modified by this letter, the terms
of your October 2008 Letter remain in full force and effect.  Sincerely,/s/
  Kathy HarrisKathy
  Harris


VP
of Human Resources   ACCEPTED:/s/ Wayne PastoreWayne
  PastoreDate:
  2/19/10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AMRO HEGAB, individually and on behalf 

of all other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01206 

(CCC)(JAD)

ORDER

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

ORDER

Plaintiff, Amro Hegab, and defendant, Family Dollar Stores, Inc., have filed 

a joint motion seeking preliminary approval of their settlement in this action. The 

Court has fully considered the motion and all related submissions and the Court for 

good cause shown grants the motion as follows:

It is on this _______ day of __________, 2014

ORDERED, that the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of their 

settlement agreement is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the proposed settlement class is conditionally certified; and 

it is further

ORDERED, that the form and manner of notice proposed by the parties, as 

well as the proposed timetable and claims form, are approved; and it is further 

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-10 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 550
2

ORDERED, that Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Hepworth Gershbaum & 

Roth, PLLC, and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC are appointed as settlement class 

counsel; and it is further 

ORDERED, that plaintiff Hegab is appointed settlement class representative 

and Rust Consulting, Inc. settlement administrator; and it is further 

ORDERED, that a copy of this Order will be served upon all counsel of 

record within seven days of the date hereof.

_______________________________

Claire Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-10 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 551
JOHN L. JIMERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5434

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

John L. Jimerson, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
 MARVEL CITY INVESTMENTS LIMITED
 
and 
 GIGAMEDIA CHINA LIMITED
 May 26, 2008
 1




---



##### 



SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
 Agreement
 MARVEL CITY INVESTMENTS LIMITED Selling Shareholder
 GIGAMEDIA CHINA LIMITED Purchaser
 WHEREAS
 Company
  Purchase
Shares
  SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS
 GIGAMEDIA
 Ordinary Shares
 US$
 SECTION 2 AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE
 Agreement to Purchase and Sale.




---



##### 



Purchase Price. Purchase Price
 Payment of the Purchase Price. Purchase Payment
 SECTION 3 CLOSING; DELIVERY
 Closing Closing th Closing Date
 Delivery at the Closing
    SECTION 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE SELLING SHAREHOLDER




---



##### 



Valid Issuance of Purchase Shares. Liens
 Due Authorization Ancillary Agreements
 No Conflicts i ii iii
 Disclosure.
 SECTION 5 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE PURCHASER
  Authorization




---



##### 



No Conflicts; Consents and Approvals, etc i ii
 SECTION 6 CONDITIONS TO CLOSING BY PURCHASER
  Representations and Warranties True and Correct
 Performance of Obligations
 Selling Shareholders Deliverables.
 SECTION 7 CONFIDENTIALITY
 Confidential Information.
 Non-Disclosure.




---



##### 



SECTION 8 MISCELLANEOUS
 Binding Effect; Assignment
 Governing Law
 Dispute Resolution
 Costs and Expenses
 Notices




---



##### 



(a)
    
    If to the Selling Shareholder,to:MARVEL CITY INVESTMENTS LIMITEDAddress:
    
    c/o Asset Managers (Asia) Company LimitedBank of America Tower, Suites 1108-110912 Harcourt Road, CentralHong KongFacsimile:
    
    852-2521-9100Telephone:
    
    852-2521-8222Attention:
    
    Mr. Jack Lin / Mr. Wilson Lee(d)
    
    If to the Purchaser, to:GIGAMEDIA CHINA LIMITEDAddress:
    
    8F, 207 Tiding Boulevard  Sec. 2,Taipei, TaiwanFacsimile:
    
    886-2-26568003Telephone:
    
    886-2-26568000Attention:
    
    General Counsel
 x y A B
 Counterparts
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




---



##### 



(Signature Page)
  MARVEL CITY INVESTMENTS LIMITEDBy:

/s/
Yip Chi ChiuName: Yip Chi ChiuTitle: Director GIGAMEDIA CHINA LIMITEDBy:

/s/
Michel ChuName: Michel ChuTitle: Director