alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alan Richard KLEIN, an individual; Sheryll Klein, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; David Los Angeles Anderberg, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-55510.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 2010.

David G. Jones, Santiago, Rodnunsky & Jones, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jonathan B. Klinck, Julie Zatz, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Colette Maria Asel, Craig Hartsuyker Law Offices, Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*1273ORDER

By order of July 30, 2008, we certified a question to the California Supreme Court concerning the scope of immunity from suit provided by California Civil Code § 846, California’s recreational land use statute, namely whether that statute immunizes a landowner from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed by the landowner’s employee in the course and scope of his employment that caused personal injury to a recreational user of that land. By opinion dated July 26, 2010, the California Supreme Court answered our question, concluding that the liability shield of § 846 “does not extend to acts of vehicular negligence by a landowner or by the landowner’s employee while acting within the course of the employment.” *Klein v. United States,*50 Cal.4th 68, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 722, 235 P.3d 42, 44 (2010).

We issued a supplemental order to the parties, indicating our intention to remand and asking them whether our panel should address other issues presented on appeal at this time. In response, we received a Joint Motion to Remand to the District Court. Although the parties’ joint motion asks us to specify the issues that the district court should address, we conclude it is more appropriate simply to remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the California Supreme Court in *Klein,*112 Cal.Rptr.3d 722, 235 P.3d at 42. We understand that the parties do not now ask us to decide any issue before remand.

Accordingly, the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand to the District Court is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the California Supreme Court in *Klein.*Beyond that requirement of consistency with *Klein,*we do not otherwise restrict the issues before the district court.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3309 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to postpone the increase 

in the minimum wage for 1 year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2009 

Mr. OLSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to postpone 

the increase in the minimum wage for 1 year. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POSTPONEMENT OF WAGE INCREASE. 

4 Section 6(a)(1)(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

5 of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘beginning 24 months after that 60th day’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘July 24, 2010’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3353 

AN ACT 

To provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs. 

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

•HR 3353 EH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT AS A STATE FOR AMERICAN 

2 SAMOA AND CNMI. 

3 Section 901(a)(2) of Omnibus Crime Control and 

4 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791(a)(2)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘Islands:’’ and all that follows 

6 through the period and inserting ‘‘Islands;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3353 

AN ACT 

To provide for American Samoa and the CommonStates for certain criminal justice programs. wealth of the Northern Marianas to be treated as
#### PEOPLE’S UNITED BANK *v.*MAZIE E. BROWN ET AL.

(AC 33259)

Gruendel, Robinson and Espinosa, Js.

Argued January 6

officially released January 24, 2012

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new law day.
Summary of Certain Compensation for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Semtech Corporation 
 Summary of Certain Compensation for Named Executive Officers 

Set forth below is a summary of certain of the Company’s compensation arrangements, not otherwise included in the Exhibits to this report, with its Named
Executive Officers, as defined by applicable SEC regulations, including persons who are no longer with the Company 
 Semtech does not provide Company cars
to the Named Executive Officers. However, Named Executive Officers, including CFO Emeka Chukwu, are paid a monthly car allowance of $637.50, which includes an allowance for maintenance and insurance, and paid for actual gasoline expenses. Payments
for gasoline related to business use are accounted for as reimbursed business expenses and amounts paid for other gasoline expenses are accounted for as compensation. 
 The Company provides cellular telephones and/or other communication devices to the Named Executive Officers and certain other employees for business use. The Company permits personal use of these items without
reimbursement. The incremental cost to the Company, if any, is negligible. 
 Former Chief Financial Officer David Franz received one additional week of paid
vacation each year in addition to paid vacation based on the schedule that applies to employees generally. 
 Chief Financial Officer Emeka Chukwu receives
one additional week of paid vacation each year in addition to paid vacation based on the schedule that applies to employees generally.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION












a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fiscal fourth quarter in the case of an annul report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and






---



##### 



a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 5, 2009
    /s/ Andrew C. PlummerAndrew C. Plummer, Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1492 

RICHARD VARN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; FRANCIS J. HARVEY,

Secretary of the United States Army,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:05-cv-00226-BO)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Varn, Appellant Pro Se. Lora M. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Varn appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army on

his employment discrimination complaint. Our review of the record

and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Varn v. Department of the Army, Case No. 5:05-cv-00226-BO

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2006). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3425 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3425

 To authorize the Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation to establish a 
   commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
       commemorate the enactment of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2009

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation to establish a 
   commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
       commemorate the enactment of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

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

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE WORK RECOGNIZING ENACTMENT OF FAIR HOUSING 
              ACT.

    (a) Authority To Establish Commemorative Work.--The Fair Housing 
Commemorative Foundation may establish a commemorative work on Federal 
land in the District of Columbia and its environs to commemorate the 
enactment of the Fair Housing Act (title VIII of Public Law 90-284) on 
April 11, 1968.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
commemorative work authorized by subsection (a) shall be established in 
accordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (commonly 
known as the ``Commemorative Works Act'').
    (c) Use of Federal Funds Prohibited.--Federal funds may not be used 
to pay any expense of the establishment of the commemorative work 
authorized by subsection (a). The Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation 
shall be solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and 
payment of the expenses of, the establishment of the commemorative 
work.
    (d) Deposit of Excess Funds.--If, upon payment of all expenses of 
the establishment of the commemorative work authorized by subsection 
(a) (including the maintenance and preservation amount provided for in 
section 8906(b), of title 40, United States Code), or upon expiration 
of the authority for the commemorative work under chapter 89 of title 
40, United States Code, there remains a balance of funds received for 
the establishment of that commemorative work, the Fair Housing 
Commemorative Foundation shall transmit the amount of the balance to 
the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for 
in section 8906(b)(1) of such title.
    (e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the terms 
``commemorative work'' and ``the District of Columbia and its 
environs'' have the meanings given to such terms in section 8902(a) of 
title 40, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### Susan F. Altamore et al., Respondents, v Sequa Corporation et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. GBJ Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 11]

—In an action, *inter*alia, to recover commissions allegedly due and payable under an oral contract, the defendants third-party plaintiffs Sequa Corporation and Sequa Capital Corporation appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated March 7, 1997, as denied that branch of their motion which was for a protective order regarding certain documents removed from their initial privilege list, dated June 28, 1993, and directed the production of those documents.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted for an in camera inspection of the documents removed from the initial privilege list and a determination as to whether such documents are privileged.

The Supreme Court erred in directing the production of certain documents without first conducting an in camera review. Contrary to the court’s finding, the defendants asserted either an attorney-client or a work product privilege as to each document at issue. Whether a particular document is protected by a privilege is necessarily a fact-specific determination, generally requiring in camera review *(see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank,*78 NY2d 371, 378). The court should have conducted such a review in this case. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Bruce Conner, Appellant, v Syracuse Fire Department et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 864]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to provide General Municipal Law § 207-a (1) benefits to petitioner from July 11, 1995 to date. General Municipal Law § 207-a (6) provides: “Any fireman receiving payments or benefits pursuant to this section, who engages in any employment other than as provided in subdivision three or five of this section shall on the commencement of such employment, forfeit his entitlement to any payments and benefits hereunder”. The record establishes that, during part of the period for which petitioner claims benefits, he was working as the operator of a car wash, as a security guard and as a locksmith. He, therefore, forfeited his entitlement to all payments and benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a (1) *(see, Matter of Faliveno v City of Gloversville,*215 AD2d 71, 74, *appeal dismissed*87 NY2d 896, *lv dismissed*87 NY2d 1055; *see also, Matter of Klonowski v Department of Fire,*58 NY2d 398, 405). The fact that petitioner was not actually “receiving payments or benefits” when he was engaged in such employment does not entitle him to benefits; by statute, such benefits are restricted to those who are disabled from all employment (General Municipal Law § 207-a [6]). The fact that petitioner is no longer engaged in other employment does not *1061restore the section 207-a benefits that were forfeited *(see, Matter of Faliveno v City of Gloversville,*228 AD2d 19, 21-22, *lv denied*89 NY2d 816).

In light of our determination, we do not address the remaining contention of petitioner. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Reargument.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Steve M. Hanni, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2005

/s/Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
#### David LYND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. McDONALD’S CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-10503

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 25, 2011.

David Lynd, Mesquite, TX, pro se.

John J. Little, Esq., Little Pedersen Fankhauser, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, David S. Foster, Latham *&*Watkins, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

*349Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*

David Lynd moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. Lynd asserts that he is impoverished, that his claims are valid, and that the magistrate judge was biased. These allegations are insufficient to show that Lynd will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). Consequently, his IFP motion is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. All other outstanding motions are likewise DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Daniel G. Zlateff et al., Appellants, v Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 67]

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motions denied and complaint reinstated against Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc., Christopher Eberle, Linda Monforte and Erie Shores, Inc. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motions of defendants Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc. (Contour), Christopher Eberle, Linda Monforte and Erie Shores, Inc. (Erie Shores), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Daniel Zlateff (plaintiff), president and sole shareholder of Z-Boing, Inc., whs injured while bungee jumping during an exhibition jump in the parking lot of Calico Jack’s Restaurant on July 4, 1992. Contour provided the crane used in the bungee-jumping event, which was planned by plaintiff, Monforte and Eberle. Monforte owned the beachfront lot on which the bungee jumping took place and on which Calico Jack’s Restaurant was situated. Monforte is also the president, owner and manager of Erie Shores, which does business as Calico Jack’s Restaurant and to which she had leased the beachfront property. Eberle is the president of Contour and owns one half of its shares.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there are material issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. Those issues include whether a joint venture existed and, if so, the identity and capacity of the joint venturers, the availability of workers’ compensation coverage and whether Zlateff was an employee or was acting independently to further his own business. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6921
CLIFTON V. GRAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and FREDERICK E. DAVIS, Sheriff, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 3552-AMD) Submitted: November 3, 2004 Decided: December 3, 2004 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton V. Graves, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr., LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Clifton V. Graves appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Graves v. Charles County Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. CA-03-3552-AMD (D. Md. May 18, 2004). 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