alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 79-286-C(3).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

Aug. 9, 1979.

David A. Lang, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Thomas M. Hanna, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

FILIPPINE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging racial discrimination in employment. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that his civil rights were violated by his removal from a job as an inspector pursuant to Emerson’s seniority policy and by his subsequent lay off and termination. For the reasons stated below the defendant’s motion must be granted.

A review of the record, including defendant’s uncontradicted affidavit in support of its motion, reveals that the most recent incident which forms the basis of plaintiff’s complaint occurred on November 19, 1973. Plaintiff then filed a complaint to the E.E. O.C. and subsequently brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., *Edwards v. Emerson Electric Company,*No. 76-779 C (4). On January 14, 1977, however, plaintiff, with leave of court, dismissed his cause without prejudice. The same facts form the basis of plaintiff’s § 1981 claim in the instant action, filed on March 18, 1979.

The applicable statute of limitations in a § 1981 action is Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120 which provides for a five year period within which an action must be brought. See also *Greene v. Carter Carburetor Co.,*532 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1976). The plaintiff is therefore clearly out of time and this Court cannot hear the action. Accordingly, the motion will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed.
##### 



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

I, John F. Wilkens, as Chief Financial Officer of AESP, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

(1)  The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the Report), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| |  |                         |  |                        
| |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
| |  | Date: November 14, 2003 |  | /s/ John F. Wilkens    
| |  |                         |  |                        
| |  |                         |  | John F. Wilkens        
| |  |                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GBC Bancorp, Inc. (the
Corporation) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Corporation.

|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                  |  | /s/ Larry D. Key                     
|                  |  |                                      
|                  |  | Larry D. Key, Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |                                      
|November 12, 2002 |  |
#### Marvin PEREZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73718.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014*

Decided April 11, 2014.

Peter D. De Bruyn, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristofer Ryan Mcdonald, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, 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 **

Marvin Perez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies in the record regarding when Perez-Cruz joined the Independent Liberal Party, when he first received a death threat by Sandinistas, whether Sandinistas threatened his brother, and whether Perez-Cruz went to the hospital after being beaten. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances). We reject Perez-Cruz’s contention that the inconsistencies were minor. Further, Perez-Cruz’s explanations do not compel the opposite result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). We lack jurisdiction to consider any contentions Perez-Cruz raises regarding his interview by a border patrol agent. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). In the absence of credible testimony, Perez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Perez-Cruz’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record to compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Nicaragua. *See id.*at 1156-57.

*497PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jasvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70132.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 19, 2011.

Jasvir Singh, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jasvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. *Rivera v. Mukasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Singh failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely filed asylum application because that finding was based on disputed facts. *See*8 U.S.C § 1158(a)(3); *cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Singh’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omissions from Singh’s father’s affidavit of Singh’s older brother’s mistreatment by the police, the filing of a complaint concerning the mistreatment, and Singh’s father’s detention. *See Goel v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Singh’s explanation for these omissions does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. *Id.*at 1156-57.

*56PETITION 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.
# 18-312 Spreadsheet_Final
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, J. David Smith, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Euramax International, Inc., certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Euramax International, Inc.;

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

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  May 16, 2005 |   | By:    |   | /s/ J. DAVID  SMITH                              |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Title: |   | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                   ERESEARCHTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Baron, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: May 4, 2007                      /s/ Richard A. Baron
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Richard A. Baron,
                                        Executive Vice President, Chief
                                        Financial Officer and Secretary

This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0895n.06
No. 13-1261 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NICOLE BARBER; ALVIN GLASPER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al. Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

OPINION

Before: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges

. BERNICE B. DONALD, Circuit Judge. Nicole Barber and Alvin Glasper appeal the district court’s grant of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their ten-count complaint. The district court's dismi ssal order and judgment were entered on January 30, 2013, (Page ID # 638, 655), and Appe llants filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2013, (Page ID # 656). Although Appellants contend that the notice of appeal was timely, (Appellant Br. at 7), Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ("FR AP") 4(a)(1)(A) prescribes an appeal period of thirty days from the entry of judgment, which expired on Marc h 1, 2013. Appellants also filed no motions under FRAP 4(a)(5) or (6) to extend or re-open the time to file an appeal. Acco rdingly, Appellants' notice of appeal was untimely.No. 13-1261 Barber v. Bank of America FRAP 4 effectuates the statutory mandate that "no appeal shall bring any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit or pro ceeding of a civil nature before a court of appeals for review unless notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the entry of such judgment, order or decree." 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Consequently, both "the Supreme Court and this Court consistently have termed [its deadlines] mandatory and jurisdictional." Ultimate Appliance CC v. Kirby Co. , 601 F.3d 414, 415 (6th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). "[T]he Ru le 4 clock starts when a judgment is entered, not when service of the judgment is effected[,]" id. at 416, and this court, like the U.S. Supreme Court, "has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements," Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Only Congress "may authori ze courts to promulgate rules that excuse compliance with the statutory time limits," id. , and no such authorization or rules alleviate the mandate that FRAP 4(a)(1)(A) advances. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as this court is without jurisdiction to consider it.

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         804,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,013,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (92,264)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,742,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,059,086
<PP&E>                                       1,094,253
<DEPRECIATION>                               (505,290)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,623,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,612,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,168
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,418,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,623,784
<SALES>                                     12,675,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,675,137
<CGS>                                        7,181,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,844,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (101,809)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                821,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                   117,351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   704,446
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED
AUGUST 2, 1997 AND THE BALANCE SHEETS AS OF AUGUST 2, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    193,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,715
<PP&E>                                         170,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 649,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           349
<OTHER-SE>                                     411,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   649,664
<SALES>                                        485,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               485,594
<CGS>                                          340,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  474,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 21, 2018

t1217

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2018

157845

DEANNA RAY and All Others Similarly

Situated, a Certified Class,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157845

COA: 337058 

Ingham CC: 13-001242-NZ

CITY OF LANSING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.