alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rosemary Ferington, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Thomas Dudkowski, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 348]

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Rosemary Ferington (plaintiff) when she fell while descending the front stairs leading to defendant’s home. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the stairs. Defendant met his burden with respect to actual notice “[b]y showing that [he] did not receive any complaints about the area prior to plaintiffs fall” *(Quinn v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc.,*15 AD3d 857, 857 [2005]; *see Gallagher v TDS Telecom,*294 AD2d 860 [2002]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendant also met his burden with respect to constructive notice by establishing that the defective condition was not “visible and apparent and [did not] exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant ] ... to discover and remedy it” *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable is*1268sue of fact. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which she stated that she fell on the “middle” step, and they submitted the affidavit of an architect who stated that the middle step was one third of an inch out of level. Such a minor defect would not be “visible and apparent” upon a reasonable inspection *(Quinn,*15 AD3d at 858; *see also Lal v Ching Po Ng,*33 AD3d 668 [2006]). We note in any event that the affidavit of plaintiffs expert was based on his examination of the stairs more than 2V2 years after the accident and thus is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the condition of the stairs at the time of plaintiffs fall *(see generally Ciccarelli v Cotira, Inc.,*24 AD3d 1276 [2005]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CEO 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 Focus  Enhancements,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Brett
Moyer, President,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/Brett A. Moyer
-----------------
Brett A. Moyer
Chief Executive Officer
August 21, 2003
Exhibit 10.25

                       Watkins-Johnson Company Employee Retention Program

March 1, 1999


As WJ has  announced  its  intention to sell itself either in its entirety or as
separate business  segments,  we want to assure you of the continued  importance
you each have to WJ, the products we produce,  and the customers we support.  We
hope that the bonus  programs  described  below will ensure that every  employee
will have an incentive to stay with WJ during these difficult times.

To participate in the following programs,  or any other severance payments,  you
will be  required  to waive any claims  against WJ. This waiver will be given to
you at the time the entire company or your business unit is sold.

Enhanced Profit Sharing Package

Currently,  every employee of Watkins-Johnson Company shares in a profit sharing
bonus  that pays a  percentage  of salary  based on  either  group  profit or WJ
profit. Realizing that strong profitability is a large factor in creating value,
WJ will double and annualize the profit  sharing for each  employee.  This means
that when the divestiture  transaction for each employees'  group closes or when
the sale of all of WJ is  complete,  whichever  comes  first,  using the regular
profit sharing  formula,  WJ will compute the profit  sharing  percentage at the
close of the  transaction  and then double and extend that percentage for all of
1999.

Transfer Bonus

We want to further  reward  those  people who choose to stay with WJ until their
group's  transaction closes or until the sale of the entire company is complete,
whichever comes first, and who then accept and begin employment with the company
that purchases  their group or the entire  company.  These people will receive a
transfer  bonus of two weeks base  salary to be paid by WJ. The  Transfer  Bonus
will  require the  confirmation  to WJ that you have begun  employment  with the
buyer of your group or the entire company.

RIF Protection

With the  uncertainties of this period,  we recognize the concern  employees may
have about the  possible  necessity  for a reduction  in force in  selected  job
areas.  To address  this  concern,  in  addition  to the WJ  Enhanced  Severance
package,  any WJ employee  not  transferred  to the new employer and RIF'd by WJ
during the balance of 1999 will  receive the  doubled  and  annualized  Enhanced
Profit Sharing Bonus described above. This RIF protection will not be applicable
in circumstances in which the transfer bonus would apply.



   The purpose of this document is to summarize the retention program and is
                               informational only.
             Formal documents will be distributed at a later date.
Exhibit 10.48

LOGO

February
22, 2008

Stebbins
B. Chandor, Jr.
c/o iPCS, Inc.
1901 N. Roselle Road
Schaumburg, IL 60195

Dear
Mr. Chandor:

Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement, dated as of March 7, 2007 (the "Employment Agreement"), between you and iPCS Wireless, Inc. Capitalized terms used herein but
not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

I
am pleased to inform you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors took the following actions effective January 1, 2008:





This
constitutes an amendment of your Employment Agreement. Please acknowledge this amendment by countersigning below.

|                                                        |                              | Very truly yours,                           
|------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                                                        |                              | iPCS, Inc.                                  
|                                                        |                              | By:                                         
|                                                        |                              | Name:  Edmund L. Quatmann, Jr.              
|                                                        |                              | Title:    Vice President and General Counsel
|AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
this 22nd day of February, 2008 |                              |                                             
|By:                                                     | /s/ Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr. |                                             

---



QuickLinks
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5334 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2004 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DICHLOROETHYL ETHER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.39.41 Dichloroethyl Ether (1,1’- 

oxybis [2-chloroethane] CLCH2-CH2–0-CH2-CH2–CL) 

(provided for in subheading 

2909.19.18) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 5334 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,586,685
<SECURITIES>                                 1,001,754
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,088,903
<PP&E>                                       1,963,386
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,825,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,417,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,060,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,043
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,035,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,417,812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,853
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,476,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,395,237)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,395,237)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,395,237)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.45)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1208

MUSA NABIEU BANGURA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-699-795) Argued: October 26, 2004 Decided: December 8, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Randall Lee Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Musa Bangura, a native and citizen of the Republic of Sierra Leone, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We first reject Bangura’s claim that he established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. In itsdecision, the Board found that Bangura had not established a wellfounded fear of persecution based upon his political beliefs and opinions if he returned to Sierra Leone. To obtain reversal of this decision, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Bangura has not shown that the evidence compels a different result. Bangura thus cannot also meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We also reject Bangura’s claim that the Board’s summary affirmance procedure violates his right to due process because the Board did not give detailed consideration of his claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(2004). We have previously held that the summary affirmance procedure comports with due process and after reviewing the record, we find nothing in Bangura’s case that3 suggests his claim was not handled with the required consideration. SeeBlanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272, 281-83 (4th Cir. 2004). Because we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s denials and Bangura’s right to due process was not violated by the summary affirmance procedure, the petition for review is

DENIED .
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3489EA

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Jose Sotero Vasquez-Ferreira, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: March 11, 1997

 Filed: May 13, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Sotero Vasquez-Ferreira worked as a van driver for a company that offered

transportation from South Texas to other parts of the country. During one of his trips,

Vasquez-Ferreira was arrested by undercover Border Patrol officers after he tried to

collect a fare for bringing two illegal aliens to Little Rock, Arkansas. The Government

charged Vasquez-Ferreira with conspiracy to transport, and two counts of transporting

an illegal alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) (1994); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994). A

jury convicted Vasquez-Ferreira on all the charges, and he appeals. We affirm. 
-2-

Vasquez-Ferreira contends the evidence was insufficient to show he knowingly

transported illegal aliens. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict,

we disagree. At least twice on the road to Little Rock, Vasquez-Ferreira was within

hearing distance when the passengers told Vasquez-Ferreira’s driving partner that they

had no immigration papers. See United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 568, 569-70

(8th Cir. 1990). Additionally, Vasquez-Ferreira acknowledged his passengers were

illegal aliens when he was explaining the trip’s cost to the undercover officers. Relying

on United States v. Medina-Garcia, 918 F.2d 4, 6-8 (1st Cir. 1990), Vasquez-Ferreira

also contends the Government failed to establish that one of his passengers was in the

United States illegally. According to Vasquez-Ferreira, the undercover officers

authorized the passenger’s entry from Mexico after he volunteered to help infiltrate a

large smuggling operation. Because Vasquez-Ferreira failed to raise this issue in the

district court, we will not consider it on appeal. See United States v. Flaherty, 76 F.3d

967, 973 (8th Cir. 1996). Besides, unlike the government informant in Medina-Garcia,

the passenger neither had a prearranged role in the Border Patrol’s sting operation nor

had been granted any legal status to live and work in the United States. See 918 F.2d

at 6-8.

We thus affirm Vasquez-Ferreira’s convictions. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN R. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-15012 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01313-RCJ
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 13, 2014 ** San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, *** Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Kevin Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant United Parcel Services, Inc. (“UPS”). We review de novo and may 

# FILED
JAN 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.affirm on any ground supported by the r ecord. Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc. , 737 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 2013). Upon review, we affirm for the reasons set forth below. In Nevada, an employer has a general duty to use reasonable care to ensure that an employee is properly trained and supervised in the performance of his or her position. Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc. , 984 P.2d 750, 751 (Nev. 1999); Hall v. SSF, Inc. , 930 P.2d 94, 99 (Nev. 1996). As to supervision, Smith's deposition testimony shows that his supervisors at UPS took reasonable and proportionate steps to address his complaints about other employees. As to training, UPS put forward evidence that it promulgated anti- harassment policies to its employees and trained its supervisors regarding harassmen t, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the training or policies were deficient. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in Smith’s favor, the recordwill not support the conclusion that UPS breached its duty of care. Summary judgment was proper because Smith failed to raise a triable issue of f act. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). AFFIRMED.

2
# Total Factor Productivity for Detailed Industries

The Total Factor Productivity for Detailed Industries release presents data on total factor productivity for 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries, the air transportation industry, and the line-haul railroad industry. Total factor productivity relates output to a combined set of inputs. This release is issued annually. For more information, visit the Productivity home page at https://www.bls.gov/productivity/.

- Total factor productivity up in 78 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2021
- Total factor productivity fell in 60 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2020
- Multifactor productivity fell in 61 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2019
- Multifactor productivity rose in 44 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2018
- Multifactor productivity rose in 37 of 86 studied manufacturing industries in 2016
- Multifactor productivity rose in 21 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2015
- Multifactor productivity rose in 38 of 86 4-digit NAICS manufacturing industries in 2014
- Multifactor productivity rises in 38 of 86 detailed manufacturing industries in 2013
- Multifactor productivity rose in 55 of 86 detailed manufacturing industries in 2011
- Multifactor productivity rose in 85% of detailed manufacturing industries studied in 2010
[No. 53645-1-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### Sayed Zia Ehsani et al., *Appellants,*v. McCullough Family Partnership et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kang County, No. 97-2-30285-4, James A. Doerty, J., entered December 12, 2003. *Reversed with instructions*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION 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

I,  James  Tilton,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Twistee  Treat  Corporation  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Interactive Marketing Technology, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ James Tilton
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Name:  James Tilton
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer

April 15, 2005
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of Cubic Energy, Inc. Employee Separation Plan

 

The key terms of the Employee Separation Plan (the “Separation Plan”) of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) are:

 

·                  All employees of the Company are eligible to receive payments pursuant to the Separation Plan, other than any employee otherwise entitled to receive severance benefits pursuant to a then-effective employment agreement with the Company.

 

·                  Payments under the Separation Plan would be made only if the employee’s employment with the Company or its successors and assigns is terminated without cause in connection with a change in control of the Company, determined in accordance with the U.S. Treasury regulations promulgated under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”); provided, however, in no event shall any termination that occurs more than six months after any change in control be deemed to have occurred in connection therewith.

 

·                  Larry Badgley, should he be entitled to receive a payment pursuant to the Separation Plan, shall be entitled to receive a separation payment equal to 100% of his base salary with the Company for the preceding twelve months, and all other employees shall be entitled to receive a separation payment equal to 50% of his or her base salary with the Company for the preceding twelve months.  To the extent that any such employee’s term of service with the Company is less than twelve months at the time of termination, the base salary for such employee for purposes of the foregoing computation shall be determined on an annualized basis.

 

·                  All payments under the Separation Plan are intended to be made in such manner and at such time so that, to the extent practicable, paying any amount would not cause the employee to incur an additional tax under Section 409A of the Code; provided, however, that the Company shall not be responsible in any manner for any such additional tax that is incurred.

 

·                  The Separation Plan shall not in any way alter any eligible employee’s status as an employee “at will,” and the Company shall retain the right to terminate any eligible employee at any time for any reason, or for no reason.

 

·                  All payments under the Separation Plan are subject to all required withholding obligations.

 

·                  All determinations under the Separation Plan, including whether any termination is for “cause” or is “in connection with a change in control,” shall be made by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

 

·                  Unless extended by the Compensation Committee or the Board of Directors, the Separation Plan will terminate if no change of control has occurred by February 28, 2015.