alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TYSON FOODS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-2184.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 7, 2013.

Filed: March 1, 2013.

Richard Johnson, Houston, TX, pro se.

Kathlyn Graves, Jeffrey L. Spillyards, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Johnson appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his complaint asserting discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Upon de novo review, *see Butler v. Bank of Am.,*690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir.2012) (standard *631of review), we agree with the district court that Johnson-who had been afforded several opportunities to present his claim-failed to allege sufficient facts to state an ADA claim. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must state “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; conclusory statements of law are insufficient to support claim); *Berg*v. *Norand Corp.,*169 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir.1999) (setting forth elements of ADA claim).2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

Judge ARNOLD dissents.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

2

. We decline to consider allegations that Johnson first raised on appeal. *See Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider allegations first raised on appeal).
2012 10K - EX 10.15 Wellborn Amendment


EXHIBIT 10.15


Amendment No. 1 
to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement


This Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of November 4, 2009 (the “Agreement”) between Mohawk Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) and W. Christopher Wellborn (“Executive”) is made this 20th day of December, 2012.


The parties have determined that it is in their best interests to amend the Agreement to include special provisions intended to ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A relating to the timing of a release of claims.  In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the continued employment of Executive by the Company, the parties agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Good Reason Provision.  The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 10(d) thereof in its entirety and substituting therefore the following:




“(d) Timing of Release of Claims. Whenever in this Agreement the provision of payment or benefit is conditioned on Executive’s execution and non-revocation of a release of claims, such release must be (i) presented by the Company to Executive within 14 days after termination of Executive’s employment and (ii) executed by Executive, and all revocation periods shall have expired, within 60 days after the date of termination of Executive’s employment.  If such payment or benefit constitutes non-exempt deferred compensation, and if such 60-day period begins in one calendar year and ends in the next calendar year, the payment or benefit shall not be made or commence before the second such calendar year, even if the release becomes irrevocable in the first such calendar year.  In other words, Executive is not permitted to influence the calendar year of payment based on the timing of his signing of the release.”
 
		
	2.
	Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Agreement shall be and remain unchanged and the Agreement as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.  The parties are authorized to restate the entire Agreement as amended hereby.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have caused this Amendment to be duly executed.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.




By:     _/s/ Jeffrey S. Lorberbaum______________
Jeffrey S. Lorberbaum
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




EXECUTIVE


_/s/ W. Christopher Wellborn__________________
W. Christopher Wellborn
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 12, 202 4

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 2285

Lower Tribunal No s

. F98

- 3144B , F98

- 5013

________________



### Derrick Grantley

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Milton Hirsch , Judge.

Derrick Grantley , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, a nd Kayla Heather McNab,

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and LINDSEY , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALELI HERNANDEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2727

[ November 14, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Joseph Marx , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502008CF018482AXXXWB

.

Aleli Hernandez, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C IKLIN and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 2:11-cv-01677-SRC-MAS Document 1-1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-01677-SRC-MAS Document 1-1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 9
Exhibit 10.82 Oates Amendment No 2 Employment Agreement




Exhibit 10.82


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is effective as of January 29, 2013 (the "Effective Date"), by and between FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), and MICHAEL P. OATES (the "Employee") and amends that certain Employment Agreement dated as of October 1, 2009, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated as of February 8, 2012 (the “Agreement”).  In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1.The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is deleted and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:  “Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Company employees Employee to serve as Corporate Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, or in such other capacity as may be mutually agreed by the parties.”
2.    The first sentence of Section 4 of the Agreement is deleted and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:  “Commencing as of February 1, 2013 and continuing during the Employment Term, Company shall pay Employee an annual base salary, before deducting all applicable withholdings, of no less than $435,000 per year, payable at the time and in the manner dictated by Company’s standard payroll policies.” 
3.    Section 5(c) of the Agreement is deleted and the following is inserted lieu thereof:
“an annual incentive bonus opportunity under Company's annual incentive plan ("Annual Bonus Plan") for each calendar year included in the Employment Term commencing as of January 1, 2013, with such opportunity to be earned based upon attainment of performance objectives established by Company ("Annual Bonus"). Employee's target Annual Bonus under the Annual Bonus Plan shall be no less than 110% of Employee's then current Annual Base Salary, with a maximum of up to 220% of Employee's then current Annual Base Salary (collectively, the target and maximum Annual Bonus are referred to as the "Annual Bonus Opportunity"). Employee's Annual Bonus Opportunity may be periodically reviewed and increased by Company, but may not be decreased without Employee's express written consent. If owed pursuant to the terms of the Annual Bonus Plan, the Annual Bonus shall be paid no later than the March 15th first following the calendar year to which the Annual Bonus relates. Unless provided otherwise herein or the Board of Directors of Company (the "Board") determines otherwise, no Annual Bonus shall be paid to Employee unless Employee is employed by Company, or an affiliate thereof, on the last date of the Annual Bonus measurement period;”
[Remainder of page is intentionally blank.]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set forth above.
	
				
	FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
 

	By:  
	/s/ Frank R. Martire
	By:  
	/s/ Michael P. Oates

	Name:
	Frank R. Martire
	 
	Michael P. Oates

	Title:
	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 







2
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5002

For the relief of Jose Manual Guzman-Morales. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Jose Manual Guzman-Morales.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JOSE 

4 MANUEL GUZMAN-MORALES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Jose Manuel Guzman-Morales shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 
2

HR 5002 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jose Manuel 

2 Guzman-Morales enters the United states before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other5 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Jose Manuel Guzman-Morales, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

HR 5002 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Jose Manuel Guzman-Mo2 rales shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Samuel Espinoza Rodriguez v. The State of Texas

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00448

- CR

Trial court case number: 1356099

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied

.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd

Date: June 23, 2016
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Reportof Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the yearending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

|        |                                                                                                                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|        |                                                                                                                                                           |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership. |

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector

March 29,2006

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Date

----
2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-23-2015 

# Ge ne r a t ion al E quit y L L C v

. R ich a r d S chom ak

e r

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s F e br ua r y i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Ge ne r a t ion al E quit y LL C v . R ich a r d S chom ak e r " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 205.
h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/205

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 1291

GENERATIONAL EQUITY LLC

v.

RICHARD SCHOMAKER; PITT CHEMICAL & SANITARY SUPPLY HOLDING CO., INC., Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2

- 13

- cv

- 01105)

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 27, 2014

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , GREENAWAY, JR., and

KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion and Judgment

filed in this case on February 19, 2015, are vacated, and the attached Not Precedential

Opinion and Judgment are to be filed in its place.

BY THE COURT

s/ Theodore A. McKee
Ch ief Judge

Dated: February 23, 2015
CLW/JK/cc: Peter N. Georgiades, Esq.

Joshua A. Lyons, Esq. Maurice A. Nernberg, Jr., Esq.
Redesign of the Consumer 

Expenditure Surveys

Jennifer Edgar

Survey Redesign Panel

January 20, 2010
Survey Purpose

 Collect information on the buying habits of 

America’s consumers, including their 

expenditures, income, and household 

characteristics

 Used for periodic revision of the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI)

2
Survey Overview

 Conducted by Census Bureau

 Interview Survey: 5 quarterly interviews 

Designed personal visit, but about 35% 

done on phone

Sample size ≈ 12,000 addresses per wave

Average response rate ≈ 75% 

 Diary Survey: 2 one-week self administered 

diaries

Sample size ≈ 12,000 addresses per year

Average response rate ≈ 76% 3
Redesign Motivations

 Why redesign: 

Evidence of measurement error

Environmental changes in technology and 

spending behaviors

Need for greater flexibility

 Objectives: 

Verifiable reduction in measurement error, 

with a particular focus on underreporting

4
Primary Success Criteria

 Reduction in measurement error

 Improved data quality

 Maintain survey costs

5
Challenges Faced: CE Surveys

6

Challenge Current Interview Current Diary

Reference period 3 months Daily diary (kept for 2 

weeks)

Proxy reporting 1 HH member reports 

for whole household

Main respondent, asked 

to talk to all HH 

members

Interview length

(OMB Estimates)

Five 65-minute 

interviews

105 minutes/week diary 

keeping, and three 25-

minute interviews 

Mode Designed PV, 

increasingly by phone

Designed paper, need 

for web instrument

Interview 

structure

Standardized, highly 

scripted interview, 

minimal flexibility

Organized by 

expenditure type and 

day
Challenges Faced: 

Redesign Process

 Defining survey requirements is challenging

Identifying varied user needs 

Reconciling competing interests 

 Collecting stakeholder input while maintaining 

forward progress

 Maintaining ongoing research efforts without 

waiting for redesign decisions

7
Redesign Constraints

 Final survey has to meet user needs 

Provide required data for CPI 

Other user needs will be identified through 

User Forum (Summer 2010)

Needs will be prioritized to create survey 

requirements

 Long-term operational survey costs cannot 

significantly increase

8
Testing

 Preliminary research currently in the field

Question order effects

Split questionnaire

Reference period 

 Statistical research on feasibility of using split 

questionnaires

 Plans for research workshop to get expert 

opinions and recommendations on key topics

 Anticipate many research efforts 2012 – 2013

9
Timeline

 2009 (completed): Project planning, definition 

of data quality

 2010: Identify and prioritize user needs, hold 

research methodology workshop

 2011: Develop research roadmap and survey 

alternatives

 2012 - 2013: Testing

 2014 and beyond: Development and 

implementation of redesigned survey

10
Costs 

 Annual CE research budget to fund most 

research projects

 Submitted budget initiative for 2011 

requesting funding support large scale 

research

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PRICASPIAN DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION et al.,

:

:

:

 Plaintiffs, :

:

Civil Action No. 11-1459 (SRC)

v.

WILLIAM C. MARTUCCI et al., 

:

:

:

: 

:

OPINION & ORDER

Defendants. :

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

This matter comes before this Court on the motion for judgment on the pleadings by

Defendant Anthony Sterbens. Sterbens’ motion contends that this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over this case because the claims under federal law have been dismissed, and the

Complaint does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction. 

Sterbens is incorrect. In the Opinion filed by this Court on January 9, 2014, this Court

granted the cross-motion for summary judgment of Defendants Richard Schaefer, Joseph

Schaefer, and Anthony Sterbens, and Ordered that the RICO claims, Counts Seven and Eight, be

dismissed as to those Defendants only. The Court expressly noted that Defendant William

Martucci had not moved to dismiss these counts. (Op. of 1/9/14 at 10.) The Complaint asserts

Counts Seven and Eight against many more Defendants than Richard Schaefer, Joseph Schaefer,

and Anthony Sterbens. As a result, the RICO claims against Martucci and others are still

pending, and provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction over this case. Sterbens has not

argued that this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, pursuant to 28

Case 2:11-cv-01459-SRC-CLW Document 370 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4436
U.S.C. § 1367(a). The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied. 

For these reasons,

IT IS on this 18th day of February, 2016

ORDERED that Sterbens’ motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 362) is DENIED.

 /s Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:11-cv-01459-SRC-CLW Document 370 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4437
Patrizio
      & Zhao, LLCCertified
      Public Accountants and Consultants
              
              322
      Route 46 WestParsippany,
      NJ 07054Tel:  (973)
      882-8810Fax:
      (973) 882-0788www.pzcpa.com





February
6, 2009





U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission


Division
of Corporate Finance


100 F.
Street, N.E.


Washington,
D.C. 20549








To Whom
It May Concern:





We are
aware that Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. has included our report dated
February 2, 2008, in its 10Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008. We are
also aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of
1933.





Yours
truly,











/s/ Patrizio & Zhao,
LLC











PATRIZIO
& ZHAO, LLC


Certified
Public Accountants and Consultants





Parsippany,
New Jersey
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40685 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HOANG VAN NGUYEN, also known as Soi, also known as Soy, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-53-1-LED

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hoang Van Nguyen appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction of one count of conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense Ecstasy, methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana. Nguyen first argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was responsible for 50,000 units of Ecstasy, a determination that affected his base offense level. He attacks the credibility of testimony presented at his sentencing hearing,No. 04-40685 -2- and he argues that there is no reliable evidence to connect him to 50,000 units of Ecstasy. In view of the testimony adduced at his sentencing hearing, Nguyen has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in holding him accountable for 50,000 units of Ecstasy. See United States v. Posada-Rios , 158 F.3d 832, 878 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Nguyen also challenges the district court’s determination that he was a manager or supervisor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Because Nguyen’s Factual Resume and the testimony adduced at his sentencing hearing support the district court’s application of the three-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), Nguyen has failed to show that the district court’s factual finding as to his role in the offense was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). Finally, relying on Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), Nguyen contends that the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional as applied to his case because he has not admitted to being involved with 50,000 units of Ecstasy or to his role in the offense. Nguyen acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. Nguyen’s Blakely argument is foreclosed.
See Pineiro , 377 F.3d at 473. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.