alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William TRAYNOR; Patricia Traynor; Rebecca Traynor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; American General International Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 09-56535, 09-56596.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*675Submitted March 7, 2011.*

Filed March 9, 2011.

Barry Kenneth Rothman, Esquire, Law Offices of Barry K. Rothman, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Keith Edward Butler, Esquire, Michael W. Goodin, G. Brent Sims, Clausen Miller P.C., Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The district court properly granted Lexington’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs’ action was barred by the limitations period in their insurance contract, and they have not established that a 12-month limitations period is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. *See Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.,*24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 690 (2000). The question is whether the limitations period is “reasonable,” *Order of United Comm. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe,*331 U.S. 586, 608, 67 S.Ct. 1355, 91 L.Ed. 1687 (1947), and numerous California cases confirm that 12 months is. *See, e.g., Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pac. Indem. Co.,*18 Cal.2d 748, 117 P.2d 669, 672 (1941) (in bank); *see also Han v. Mobil Oil Corp.,*73 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir.1995) (citing cases).

Because plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred, we need not reach whether they pleaded AIG’s alter ego liability sufficiently, or whether the district court erred in denying defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Seventeenth Amendment to Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.8 
 SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Seventeenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is
made and entered into as of January 1, 2007, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and Robert M. Gans (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	 	A)	On September 20, 1994 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Executive and Price Enterprises, Inc. 

  

	 	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been assigned to Employer and amended on sixteen prior occasions; 

  

	 	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
  

	 	1.	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides: 

  

	 	2.1	Salary. For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $257,500 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary
shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 

 is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2007, to provide as follows: 
  


	 	2.1	Salary. For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $265,300 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary
shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 

  

	 	2.	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 

 Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	Robert M. Gans	 		 	By:	 	  

	  
	 		 	Name:	 	Jose Luis Laparte
		 		 	Its:	 	President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE:

9:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2017.

# PLACE:

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS:

The one item is open to the public.

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

57150 Railroad Accident Report: Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment, Chester, Pennsylvania, April 3, 2016

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

                        Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at                         *Rochelle.McCallister@ntsb.gov*                         by Wednesday, November 7, 2017.                    

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov*.                    

                        Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov*.                    

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov*.                    

# FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Terry Williams at (202) 314-6100 or by email at                         *terry.williams@ntsb.gov*.                    

Thursday, October 19, 2017.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-23005 Filed 10-19-17; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
[No. 42120-8-II.

Division Two.

October 30, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Catreena Rai Mendenhall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 10-1-01550-7, Barbara D. Johnson, J, entered May 12, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Johanson, A.C.J.,

concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall and Penoyar, JJ.
---

Exhibit 7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gil Clausen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|March 25, 2009 | /s/
      Gil Clausen  
|-------------- | -----------------------
|               |                        
|               | Gil Clausen            
|               | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7534

MICHAEL F. DEHONEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 05-7535

MICHAEL F. DEHONEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.
- 2 -

No. 05-7536

HENRY F. DEHONEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-21981-HMH-BHH; CA-04-22025-HMH-BHH;

CA-04-22026-HMH-BMH)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Barton Jon Vincent, DAVIDSON,

MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Dehoney appeals the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and construing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) and dismissing the complaint and the order denying his

motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dehoney v.

Ozmint, Nos. CA-04-21981-HMH-BHH; CA-04-22025-HMH-BHH;

CA-04-22026-HMH-BMH (D.S.C. Aug. 10 & 29, 2005). 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
#### HUAXIN JIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-77044.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Vargas *&*Associates, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Brickley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Div., Public Integrity Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *666R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*666MEMORANDUM **

Huaxin Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the opinion of the BIA. *Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999). We review the IJ’s adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Jin’s asylum application is untimely and thus statutorily ineligible for asylum, because the IJ’s determination is based on Jin’s failure to credibly establish her arrival date, a disputed fact. *Cf Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 656-657 (9th Cir.2007).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because it is based upon Jin’s unresponsive testimonial demeanor, *see Singh-Kaur,*183 F.3d at 1151, and Jin’s failure to establish that she was a Christian, a finding that goes to the heart of Jin’s claim that she was persecuted for practicing Christianity. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004).

Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Jin’s testimony was credible, she has not established eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Jin’s CAT claim also fails because she did not show that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if removed to China. *See Kumar v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 1043, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jenny V. Gruber, Respondent, v J.W.E. Silk, Inc., Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 650]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 24, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was hired by defendant in 2002 to head its home furnishings division. Plaintiff alleged that in late 2004 or early 2005 the parties agreed that in exchange for her agreement to remain at the company for the year, she would be paid in 2005 a base salary of $200,000, payable bimonthly, and additional compensation of $75,000, payable sporadically over the course of the year. She claimed she reached the same agreement with defendant in early 2006. She left in March 2006, allegedly, in part, because the additional payments were not made.

Defendant contends that plaintiffs salary was $200,000 and the additional payments were discretionary bonuses, based on *340performance and profitability. Defendant also argues that the alleged agreement to make the additional payments is not enforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-1105 in the absence of a writing clearly describing the past consideration.

As a general rule, an employee has no enforceable right to payment under a discretionary compensation or bonus plan *(see Namad v Salomon Inc.,*147 AD2d 385 [1989], *affd*74 NY2d 751 [1989]). However, there is a long-standing policy against forfeiture of earned wages. Whether unpaid incentive compensation under a bonus plan constitutes a discretionary bonus or earned wages not subject to forfeiture is an issue of fact *(see Mirchel v RMJ Sec. Corp.,*205 AD2d 388 [1994]).

Plaintiffs affidavit and testimony are at odds with the affidavit and testimony of defendant concerning whether the additional payments were discretionary and based on performance and profitability or whether they were an integral part of her total compensation package, the consideration for which was her agreement to remain at the company for the year. If plaintiffs version of events is accepted, defendant may be found liable for the additional compensation despite section 5-1105 because the consideration was not for plaintiffs past performance, but for her agreement to stay with the company in the future. Triable issues of fact preclude summary disposition here. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
CERTIFICATIONS
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Exhibit
      32




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of RG America, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), John E. Rea,
      Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.




/s/
                John E.
                ReaJohn
                E. ReaPrincipal
                Executive OfficerMay
                22, 2006








**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of RG America, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Bruce A. Hall,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.





/s/
                Bruce A.
                HallBruce
                A. HallPrincipal
                Financial OfficerMay
                22, 2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      RG America, Inc. and will be retained by RG America, Inc. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Carol
      K.
      Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Lars H. Johnson, Chief
      Financial Officer of Cascade Financial Corporation (the "Corporation"), each
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





|1. | The
              Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
              "Form 10-K"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
              15(d)
              of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
              and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|2. | The
              information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the
              Corporation.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This
      certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is
      not
      being filed as part of this report.








Date:
      March 14, 2007








/s/
      Carol K. Nelson


Carol
      K.
      Nelson, President and Chief Executive Officer








/s/
      Lars H. Johnson


Lars
      H.
      Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

The meeting will be open to the public, viewing virtually by WebEx.

                    Individuals can register to view and access the meeting by the link below.                     *https://nih.webex.com/​nih/​onstage/​g.php?​MTID=​e6a964963ab0c5b7233829f6cdd393951.*

Click “Register”. On the registration form, enter your information and then click “Submit” to complete the required registration.

You will receive a personalized email with the live event link.

*Name of Committee:*                         Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) Review Board.                    

*Date:*                         December 15, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         The CAN Review Board will meet virtually to discuss updates regarding CAN programs and next steps.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health,  One Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anna L. Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0809,                         *anna.ramseyewing@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: October 16, 2017.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-22728 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jairo GAMBOA-VICTORIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-13668

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 13, 2008.

Daniel M. Hernandez, Daniel M. Hernandez, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Yvette Rhodes, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel M. Hernandez, counsel for Jairo Gamboa-Victoria, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent review of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdrawn is GRANTED and Gamboa-Victoria’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.