alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LBS/Research 1 08-15340

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD HENDERSON, aka Ronnie

Henderson,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC., dba

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company;

et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-15340

D.C. No. CV-07-00101-DAE

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LBS/Research 2 08-15340

Ronald Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of his former employer in his action alleging race

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of

summary judgment, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.

2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination

and retaliation claims because Henderson failed to show that his employer’s

proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual. See id. at 640-42, 646. 

Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the harassment

claim because Henderson failed to show that he was subjected to conduct severe or

pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See id. at 642-44.

We decline to consider other issues because Henderson did not adequately

argue them in his opening brief. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727,

738 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The Court of Appeals will not ordinarily consider matters on

appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”). 

AFFIRMED.
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.48 
  
 Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers 
  
 Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by MEMC Electronic
Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) to the five executive officers to be named in the Company’s 2006 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”). Each of these executive officers is an employee at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s
Board of Directors. 
  
 Base Salaries. These executive
officers receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below: 
  

				
	 Name and Position

	  	2006 Base Salary
Amount


	 Nabeel Gareeb, Chief Executive Officer and President
	  	$	610,000
	 Thomas E. Linnen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (1)
	  	$	250,000
	 Shaker Sadasivam, Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	  	$	315,000
	 John A. Kauffmann, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  	$	300,000
	 Sean Hunkler, Senior Vice President, Manufacturing
	  	$	350,000



	(1)	Mr. Linnen stepped aside as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer on April 27, 2006. 

  
 The Compensation Committee adjusts these base salaries from time to time as
the Committee deems appropriate, generally annually. 
  
 Incentive Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans. Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for
material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K. 
  
 Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the MEMC Pension Plan on the same terms as the Company’s other covered employees. Because they commenced employment after December 31, 2001,
Mr. Gareeb, Mr. Hunkler and Mr. Linnen are not covered by the MEMC Pension Plan. 
  
 Relocation Payments. From time to time the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dawn T. Bowen, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1103 C.D. 2022

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : Respondent :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4 th day of March

, 202 4

, it is ordered that the above

captioned opinion filed on January 9 , 202 4 , shall be designated OPI NION, rather

than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.
*This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 24, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER R. SALEH, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-1099 v. (D. Colorado) GEORGE DUNBAR; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees. (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02070-ZLW)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

This is a pro se appeal from the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief. Thepetitioner was convicted in Colorado state court, following a jury trial, of seconddegree assault and was sentenced to thirty-two years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, People v. Saleh, 25 P.3d 1248 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000), but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction, People v. Saleh, 45 P.3d 1272 (Colo.-2- 2002). Petitioner did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court. A subsequent state motion for post-judgment relief was filed on February 16, 2005, and was denied on appeal on December 18, 2008. In his § 2254 petition, the petitioner alleged that he was denied his right to due process by the Colorado Supreme Court in his direct criminal appeal proceedings, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were denied when he was denied counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition because it was untimely. The court concluded that the state post-conviction proceedings did not toll the time to file the § 2254 petition. The district court also denied the petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The petitioner now requests a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed ifp from this court. After reviewing the petitioner’s filings on appeal and the trial court’s thorough and extensive order, we conclude that the petitioner has not shown that reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court was correct in denying the petition as untimely. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).-3- We therefore DENYthe application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal. The application to proceed ifp is also DENIED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aboubacar DJIKINE, a/k/a Bouba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-6347.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Aboubacar Djikine, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aboubacar Djikine seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Djikine has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Djikine’s motion for a transcript at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
---

---

EXHIBIT 8.1

|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                    | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|----------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Aladdin Knowledge Systems Inc.                        | New York                     
|Aladdin Japan & Co. Inc.                              | Japan                        
|Aladdin Western Europe Ltd.                           | England and Wales            
|Hafalad BV                                            | Holland                      
|Aladdin Western Europe BV                             | Holland                      
|Aladdin Western Europe Ltd.
(Aladdin France S.A.R.L.) | France                       
|Aladdin Knowledge Systems
Deutschland GmbH            | Germany                      
|Aladdin Asia Limited                                  | Hong Kong                    



---

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of   Environmental   Service
Professionals,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form  10KSB/A  for the period  ending
December  31,  2006 (the  "Report")  I,  Edward L.  Torres,  Chairman  and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of our knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated:  July 6, 2007


\s\ Edward L. Torres
------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Torres, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Executive Incentive Plan for Fiscal 2007



 Exhibit 10.5 
 Executive Incentive Plan for Fiscal 2007 
 On July 26, 2006, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors, as well as the Board of Directors, of American Superconductor Corporation (the “Company”) approved an executive incentive
plan for the Company’s fiscal year ending March 31, 2007. Participants in the plan include the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and all other executive officers. The Committee is responsible for determining the payout under the plan
to each executive officer except the Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors of the Company determines the payout under the plan for the Chief Executive Officer, taking into account the recommendation received from the Committee. 

Pursuant to the plan, the Committee designated for each executive officer a target cash incentive amount, expressed as a percentage of the officer’s base salary.
In establishing these targets, the Committee based its decision for each officer on the level of total compensation including base salary, cash incentive and equity paid by similar companies for comparable positions based on market data compiled by
external consulting firms. 
 The amount of the incentive award actually paid to each executive officer may be less than or greater than the executive’s
target cash incentive with the amount capped at 156% of the target incentive. Individual incentive awards will be determined following the end of fiscal 2007 based on the following factors and their corresponding weightings: 
  

	•	 	the Company’s net income for fiscal 2007 as compared to the target established by the Committee – 40% 

  

	•	 	the executive’s achievement of individual, measurable objectives during fiscal 2007, as determined by the Committee for all executives with the exception of the Chief Executive
Officer, who is evaluated by the Board of Directors – 40% 

  

	•	 	the executive’s overall contribution during fiscal 2007 towards the achievement of the Company’s financial and non-financial objectives – 20%


 The following table sets forth each current executive officer’s target cash incentive for fiscal 2007.

  

						
	 Executive Officer
	  	 Title
	  	Target Incentive
	 Gregory J. Yurek
	  	Chief Executive Officer and President	  	$	247,500
	 Terry M. Winter
	  	Executive Vice President, Operations	  	$	120,000
	 Charles W. Stankiewicz
	  	Senior Vice President, AMSC Power Systems	  	$	110,000
	 Alexis P. Malozemoff
	  	Executive Vice President & Chief Technical Officer	  	$	76,376
	 Angelo R. Santamaria
	  	VP, General Manager, AMSC Wires Business Unit	  	$	68,800
	 Thomas M. Rosa
	  	VP, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	  	$	40,000
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 at and for
the periods indicated.
  /s/ Cameron R. NelsonCameron R. NelsonVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1736 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1736

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
  deductions of members of the National Guard or reserve units of the 
   Armed Forces will be allowable in computing adjusted gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1993

  Mr. Hutto introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
  deductions of members of the National Guard or reserve units of the 
   Armed Forces will be allowable in computing adjusted gross income.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) paragraph (2) 
of section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
certain trade and business deductions of employees) is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Certain expenses of reservists and national 
                guard members.--The deductions allowed by part VI 
                (section 161 and following) which consist of any of the 
                following expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in 
                connection with the performance by him of service as a 
                member of a reserve unit of the Armed Forces of the 
                United States or of a unit of the National Guard:
                            ``(i) Expenses of travel, meals, and 
                        lodging while away from home.
                            ``(ii) Expenses of transportation and 
                        uniforms.''
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.








Dated: September 21, 2011





/s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President, Chief

Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 21.1
 LodgeNet Interactive Corporation and Subsidiaries
Subsidiaries of the Company
 Company Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationLodgeNet StayOnline, Inc.
    
    DelawareLodgeNet Interactive Canada Corporation
    
    Ontario, CALodgeNet International
    
    DelawareEquipment OCV, Inc.
    
    DelawareHotel Digital Network, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaOn Command Corporation
    
    DelawareOn Command Canada Inc.
    
    Ontario, CAOn Command Development Corp
    
    DelawareOn Command Video Corp
    
    DelawareOnCo-HTV, Inc.
    
    DelawarePuerto Rico VEC
    
    DelawareSpectradyne International, Inc.
    
    DelawareThe Hotel Networks, Inc.
    
    DelawareVirgin Islands VEC
    
    Delaware
Exhibit 32.2

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 Interlink Electronics, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles C. Best, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/ Charles C. Best                                      
|Charles C. Best Chief Financial Officer November 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3292]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-35,361]


The Trane Company, Tyler, TX; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 19, 1999, applicable 
to workers of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, 
Incorporated, Tyler, Texas. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on January 29, 1999 (64 FR 4712).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that some employees of The Trane Company, a division of American 
Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas were leased from Remedy 
Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas to produce single 
cylinder reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units at the 
Tyler, Texas facility. Information also show that workers separated 
from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a 
separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Remedy Intelligent 
Staffing, Incorporated.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers at Remedy Intelligent Staffing, 
Incorporated, Tyler, Texas leased to The Trane Company, a division of 
American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-35,361 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers at The Trane Company, a division of American 
Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas and leased workers of Remedy 
Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas who were engaged in 
employment related to the production of single cylinder 
reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units for The Trane 
Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after December 1, 1997 through January 19, 2001 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of January 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-3292 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carbon Lehigh Intermediate Unit #21, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 750 C.D. 2021

:

Kimberly Waardal (Workers' :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, February 10, 2022, upon consideration of Petitioner’s

application for reargument, and Respondent’s answer in response thereto, the 

application is denied.