alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT MITCHELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO

MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENT, et

al.,

 Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-1664 (JBS/JS)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the motion of

Defendant Jeffrey Perez to alter judgment [Docket Item 56]; for

the reasons expressed in today’s Memorandum Opinion,

IT IS this 22nd day of March, 2013 hereby

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

 JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01664-JBS-JS Document 60 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 713
2012 Exhibit 10.35








Exhibit 10.35









December 12, 2012


E. Kevin Hrusovsky




Dear Kevin,


The purpose of this letter is to summarize a change to the terms of your employment with PerkinElmer, Inc. ("the Company") effective as of December 7, 2012, as follows:


		
	•
	The Company will assume the severance obligations of Caliper Life Sciences set forth in the Key Employee Change of Control and Severance Benefit Plan Amended and Restated as of December 8, 2010 between you and Caliper Life Sciences (the "Caliper Change of Control Agreement"), provided that, by signing below, you agree that (i) PerkinElmer's obligations under the Caliper Change of Control Agreement shall only apply as to the Change of Control (as defined in the Caliper Change of Control Agreement) created by the acquisition of Caliper Life Sciences by PerkinElmer, Inc. and shall not apply in connection with a change in control of the Company, and (ii) unless earlier terminated by mutual agreement, the Caliper Change of Control Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect as of June 7, 2013. You agree that the Caliper Change of Control Agreement is amended to the extent required to reflect the foregoing.




Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing below and returning to my attention at your earliest convenience.


Sincerely,


/s/ Robert F. Friel


Robert F. Friel
Chairman and CEO
PerkinElmer, Inc.






Agreed and accepted this 19th day of December, 2012.


   /s/ E. Kevin Hrusovsky            
E. Kevin Hrusovsky
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6357
BILLY MOSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGENE NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-225-DKC) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate j udge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Moss v. Nuth , No. CA-95-225-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 11, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1343** 

DONALD X. KIDD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TA OPERATING, LLC, d/b/a Travelcenters of America , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00069

- HEH )

Submitted : October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donald X. Kidd, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Donald X. Kidd appeals the district c ourt ’ s order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Kidd v. TA Operating Corp. , No. 3:10

- cv - 00069

- HEH (E.D

. Va. Mar. 18, 2010). 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
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD   Document 45    Filed 07/18/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 320
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------


                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

                           National Datacomputer, Inc.
          Statement recomputation of net income (loss) per common share

<TABLE><CAPTION>
                                                                    December 31,   December 31,
                                                                       1999           1998
                                                                    -----------    -----------
<S>                                                                 <C>            <C>
Net income (loss), as reported                                      $   101,789    $  (421,188)

Preferred stock preference items:

Warrant                                                                            $  (214,000)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series C
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                                  $   (25,958)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series D
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                                  $   (20,644)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series E
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                                  $   (75,000)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series F
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                   $   (56,250)   $   (18,750)

Interest on Series B, C, D and F convertible preferred stock        $  (420,625)   $  (413,625)
                                                                    -----------    -----------

Total preferred stock preference item                               $  (476,875)   $  (767,977)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                        $  (375,086)   $(1,189,165)

Weighted average shares outstanding:

A. Shares attributable to common stock outstanding                    2,787,346      1,798,226
B. Shares attributable to convertible preferred stock outstanding          --             --
C. Shares attributable to common stock options and warrants
        pursuant to APB 15, paragraph 38 (a)                               --             --
                                                                    -----------    -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                                   2,787,346      1,798,226
                                                                    ===========    ===========
Net loss per share                                                  $     (0.13)   $     (0.66)
                                                                    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
February 11, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 03-20484

_______________



### C OMMINT 

### , I NC 

### .; C OMMINT 

### T ECHNICAL 

### S ERVICES 

### , I NC 

### .; AND 

### W. K EITH 

### K ELLEY 

### , Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS



### S TEVEN 

### B UCH 

### ; J AY 

### R. S EVERAL 

### ; E TRAC 

### S OLUTIONS 

### , I NC 

### .;

AND 

### R OBERT 

### A NDREW 

### A SSOCIATES 

### , I NC 

### ., Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas


### m H-02-CV-2982

_________________________

Before H IGGINBOTHAM , S MITH , and W IENER , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

Plaint iffs sued in state court, and defendants, after removing to federal court, so ught to compel arbitration of all claims pursuant to an ar bit ration clause in one of several related agreements. The district court denied arbitration, and defendants appeal.

We have read the briefs and have heard the arguments of counsel and have reviewed pertinent portions of the reco r d. We conclude that the arbitration clause is not enforceable against parties that are not signatories to the agreement that contains that clause. The order appealed from is AFFIRMED. * 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

          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 interim report of DoMark International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Thomas Kidd, Chief Executive 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 2002, That to the best of my 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.

DOMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By /s/ R. Thomas Kidd
  ------------------------------------------
  R. Thomas Kidd
  Chief Executive Officer
  April 1, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM MARCEL BOYCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (3:91-cr-00114-03; 3:05-cv-00070)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Marcel Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Marcel Boyce seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion with

prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boyce has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyce’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Maura Garcia et al., Appellants, v Eom Munseob, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 465]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 1, 2005 which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and *587the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether proper service was effected and for a new determination of the motion.

In this particular case, considering the process server’s affidavit of service as supplemented by the process server’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion *(see Galarza v Saddle Cove Assoc., LLC,*22 AD3d 523 [2005]; *cf Gurevitch v Goodman,*269 AD2d 355, 355-356 [2000]), a hearing was necessary to determine the issue of whether proper service was effected. Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 283

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 49

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003

Received and read the first time 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT

To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the 

Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 49 PCS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Tax Non3 discrimination Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREE5 DOM ACT MORATORIUM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1101 of 

7 the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(a) MORATORIUM.—No State or political subdivision 

10 thereof may impose any of the following taxes: 

11 ‘‘(1) Taxes on Internet access. 

12 ‘‘(2) Multiple or discriminatory taxes on elec13 tronic commerce.’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 1101 

15 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) 

16 is amended by striking subsection (d). 

17 (2) Section 1104(10) of the Internet Tax Freedom 

18 Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ‘‘unless’’ 

19 and all that follows through ‘‘1998’’. 

20 (3) Section 1104(2)(B)(i) of the Internet Tax Free21 dom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ‘‘ex22 cept with respect to a tax (on Internet access) that was 

23 generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 

24 1, 1998,’’. 

25 (c) CLARIFICATION.—The second sentence of section 

26 1104(5), and the second sentence of section 
3

HR 49 PCS 

1 1101(e)(3)(D), of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 

2 U.S.C. 151 note) are each amended by inserting ‘‘, except 

3 to the extent such services are used to provide Internet 

4 access’’ before the period.

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 
Calendar No. 283

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 49

AN ACT

To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by 

the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003

Received and read the first time 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Case 2:11-cv-01901-DMC-JAD Document 5 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 36
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Salary.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), G. Kent Plunkett, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Bryce Chicoyne, Senior Vice President and 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 2002, that to our best knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be
filed for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: June 29, 2009



/s/ G. Kent PlunkettG. Kent Plunkett Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 29, 2009



/s/ Bryce ChicoyneBryce Chicoyne Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Jacinto Juan Carhuaz RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74048.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.*

Filed Nov. 26, 2012.

*682Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of Judith Seeds Miller, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Jacinto Juan Carhuaz Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. *Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Carhuaz Rodriguez challenges the agency’s determination that he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely filed asylum application on the basis of Dr. LoRé’s evidence and his own testimony. We lack jurisdiction to review his contentions regarding the IJ’s analysis of Dr. LoRé’s evidence because the agency’s finding was based on disputed facts regarding Carhuaz Rodriguez’s mental condition, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *cf. Husyev,*528 F.3d at 1178-81 (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were undisputed), and because Carhuaz Rodriguez failed to raise his contentions regarding confrontation and recall problems to the BIA, *see Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). Further, Carhuaz Rodriguez’s testimony does not otherwise compel the conclusion that he established extraordinary circumstances excusing his late filing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we *683dismiss in part and deny in part as to Carhuaz Rodriguez’s asylum claim.

With respect to withholding of removal, the BIA denied relief in part because Carhuaz Rodriguez failed to establish a likelihood of harm in the future. Substantial evidence supports this determination. *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Carhuaz Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

ESTHER SALAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE

50 WALNUT ST.

ROOM 2037

NEWARK, NJ 07101

973-297-4887

March 20, 2013

LETTER ORDER

Re: Martin v. Target Corporation of Minnesota, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-0464 (ES) 

Dear Counsel:

Pending before this Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s Motion for an Order 

Enforcing Settlement (the “Motion,” D.E. No. 19). Plaintiff Pearline Martin opposed the Motion. 

(Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Enforce Settlement, D.E. No. 26). Defendant filed a 

reply brief in support of its Motion. (Br. in Reply to Pl.’s Opp. to Def. Target Corp.’s Mot. for an 

Order Enforcing Settlement, D.E. No. 27). On February 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cathy 

Waldor issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the Motion as it 

relates to enforcing the settlement and deny the Motion as it relates to costs and fees associated 

with filing the Motion. (D.E. No. 28). Magistrate Judge Waldor advised the parties that they 

had fourteen days to file and serve any objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 

Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). To date, neither party has filed any objections. 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and has considered Judge Waldor’s

Report and Recommendation, and for the reasons stated therein,

IT IS on this 20th day of March, 2013,

ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Waldor’s February 22, 2013 Report and 

Recommendation in full, and thus grants Defendant’s Motion as it relates to enforcing the 

settlement and denies the Motion as it relates to costs and fees associated with filing the Motion; 

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 28. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Esther Salas 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J

Case 2:11-cv-00464-ES-CLW Document 29 Filed 03/20/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 166