alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30119

Summary Calendar

EHLINGER & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation;

LADD P EHLINGER

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LOUISIANA ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2413-R)

December 21, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ehlinger appeal s the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of LAA dismissing his complaint. We affirm.

The gravamen of Ehlinger’s argument on appeal is that LAA

eng aged in anti-competitive conduct by controlling the LASB.

Ehlinger claims that LAA obtained its dominance over the LASB by

supporting its members in LASB elections and soliciting the LASB to

adopt its positions on various issues. We agree with the district

court that “[Ehling er’s] assertions are nothing more than1 We affirm the district court on Noerr-Pennington grounds and

do not reach the question of state-action immunity.

2 allega tions that the LAA sought to influence the LASB and

succeeded.” Ehlinger & Assoc. v. Louisiana Architects Ass’n , 989

F. Supp. 775, 785 (E.D. La. 1998). LAA’s actions in lobbying the

LASB and campaigning to have its memb ers elected to the LASB are

protected from antitrust attack by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight,

Inc. , 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington , 381

U.S. 657 (1965). We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion

that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars Ehlinger’s federal

antitrust claims against LAA. 1

Ehlinger also contends that the distr ict court improperly

dismissed his claims under the L ouisiana Unfair Trade Practices

Act. According to Ehlinger, the statutory exemption under the

LUTPA for “conduct which complies with sec tion 5(a)(1) of the

Federal Trade Commission Act”, La. Rev. Stat. Ann . § 51:1406(4),

does not apply in this case because LAA evaded liability under the

FTCA on immunity grounds, not by complying with the Act. Like the

district court, we find Ehlinger’s argument to be unpersuasive.

Section 5(a)( 1) of the FTCA declares unlawful “[u]nfair

methods of co mpetition . . . and unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in or affecting commerce.” By holding that LAA’s conduct

falls under Noerr

, we have recognized that LAA has engaged in

protected petitioning activity, not unlawful anti-competitive or

deceptive practices. LAA’s actions can not be the basis for § 53

liability; consequently, they qualify for the FTCA exemption in the

LUTPA. S ee FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n

, 493 U.S. 411

(1990).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### NEUBRECH, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court,. Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Charles Neubrech against William V. Lawrence, impleaded. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Steven Lyons, a Disbarred Attorney.

[718 NYS2d 815]

—Motion granted and this Court’s order entered on November 22, 1994 (205 AD2d 239) and the Opinion Per Curiam issued therewith vacated and petitioner reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, the underlying criminal conviction having been vacated and the charge dismissed *(United States v Steven Lyons*[Case No. A92-174Cr]). No opinion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50056

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO VENEGAS, also known as 

Victor Torres-Gutierrez, also 

known as Pedro Rangel Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1562-ALL-H

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

September 17, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Venegas appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for importing and possessing marijuana in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 960. Venegas argues that the district

court erred in refusing to adjust his sentence downward for

accepting responsibility and for being a minor participant in the

offense.

Given the enhancement of Venegas’ sentence under U.S.S.G. 

§ 3C1.1, Venegas’ use of false names, his refusal to speak with
No. 01-50056 

-2-

the probation officer, and the great deference given to the

sentencing judge, the district court’s refusal to apply the

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was not

error. See United States v. Lujan-Sauceda, 187 F.3d 451, 452

(5th Cir. 1999). Nor is there any error in the district court’s

refusal to apply the minor-participant adjustment given the large

amount of marijuana involved. See United States v. Rojas, 868

F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Isadore Rosen & Sons, Inc., Respondent, v. John A. Johnson & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action by a subcontractor against the general contractor and the surety company on its bond, to recover damages allegedly sustained by reason of delays and interference during the performance of a construction contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 1, 1959, denying their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,087
<SECURITIES>                                    19,367
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,179
<INVENTORY>                                        879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,553
<PP&E>                                           3,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,489
<SALES>                                         18,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,069
<CGS>                                            3,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (65)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                       452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1005.101 What is the applicability and scope of these regulations?

Under the provisions of section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as amended by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (the Department or HUD) has the authority to guarantee loans for the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of 1- to 4-family homes that are standard housing located on trust or restricted land or land located in an Indian or Alaska Native area. This part provides requirements that are in addition to those in section 184.

[67 FR 19493, Apr. 19, 2002]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, and BRIANA FREDRANIQUE

ANNETTE JACKSON, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge

# 275), C. SMITH, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge #

285), P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge #

291), WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually

and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police

Department (Badge # 274), 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

ORDER MODIFYING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

RE MOTIONS FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

The parties have stipulated to request an order postponing the briefing schedule for

motions for attorney’s fees in this matter until after the parties’ post-trial motions have been ruled

upon. The request is GRANTED. The briefing schedule for motions for attorney’s fees is hereby

modified as follows. No later than SEVEN DAYS after the order deciding the Rule 50 motions,

each side may submit a single motion for attorney’s fees of no more than 25 pages. These

motions should be limited to the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees, not the amount of fees

sought, and should address the entire case. The motions for entitlement to attorney’s fees shall be

heard on a normal 35-day calendar. If it is subsequently determined that any side is entitled to 

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 215 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

attorney’s fees, a schedule shall be set for further briefing regarding the amount of fees due. This

order does not modify any other deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 215 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.931 Statement of availability. ( a ) Updated copies of the Minimum Property Standards and Use of Materials Bulletins are available for public examination in the Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, room 9156, 451 Seventh St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20410-8000. In addition, copies of volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the Minimum Property Standards may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
( b ) Publications approved by the Director of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
[63 FR 5423, Feb. 2, 1998]
### §463. Repealed. May 25, 1926, ch. 383, §47, 44 Stat. 650

Section, act Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. E, 43 Stat. 702, related to notices concerning construction charges.
### §364d. Promulgation of decisions; furnishing information

For the guidance of the Federal Government, the Secretary shall promulgate in the name of the Board, from time to time and in such form as will carry out the purposes of this chapter, decisions with respect to geographic names and principles of geographic nomenclature and orthography. The Secretary shall also furnish such additional information with respect to geographic names as will assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

(July 25, 1947, ch. 330, §5, 61 Stat. 457.)
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Global
Matrechs, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned President, Chief Executive Officer, and acting Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, 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
Registrant.



                                               /s/ Michael Sheppard
                                                   -----------------------------
                                            Name:  Michael Sheppard
                                            Title: President, CEO and acting CFO
                                            Date:  August 16, 2004
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:00:13-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
```

[106th Congress Public Law 311]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ311.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1247]]

Public Law 106-311
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To increase the amount of fees charged to employers who are petitioners 
    for the employment of H-1B non-immigrant workers, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 17, 2000 -  [H.R. 5362]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF FEES.

    Section 214(c)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(c)(9)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(excluding'' and all 
        that follows through ``2001)'' and inserting ``(excluding any 
        employer that is a primary or secondary education institution, 
        an institution of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) 
        of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a), a 
        nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with any such 
        institution, a nonprofit entity which engages in established 
        curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at 
        any such institution, a nonprofit research organization, or a 
        governmental research organization) filing before October 1, 
        2003''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$500'' and inserting 
        ``$1,000''.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1184 note.>> EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1(2) shall apply only to petitions 
that are filed on or after the date that is 2 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

    Approved October 17, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5362:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 6, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):
            Oct. 17, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
Amendment to Confirmation of OTC Additional Convertible Note-JPMorgan Chase Bank



  
 Exhibit 10.93

 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association 
 P.O. Box 161 
 60 Victoria Embankment 
 London EC4Y 0JP 
 England 

August 30, 2010 
 To: Gilead Sciences, Inc.  
 333 Lakeside Drive 

Foster City, California 94404 

			
	 Attention:
	  	 Treasurer

	 Telephone No.:
	  	 (650) 522-5727

	 Facsimile No.:
	  	 (650) 522-3000


 Re: Additional
Call Option Transaction (2016) 
 1.        Reference is made to the
letter agreement Re: Additional Call Option Transaction (2016) dated August 5, 2010 and entered into between into between JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, London Branch (“Dealer”) and Gilead Sciences, Inc.
(“Counterparty”) (the “Confirmation”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 

2.        Whereas the Confirmation defined the Free Convertibility Date as
April 1, 2016, but Counterparty and Dealer wish to define the Free Convertibility Date as February 1, 2016; 
 3.        Now, therefore, each of Counterparty and Dealer do hereby agree that: 

a.        the definition of the Free Convertibility Date in the Confirmation is
hereby replaced in its entirety by February 1, 2016; 

b.        (i) J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., an affiliate of Dealer
(“JPMSI”), has acted solely as agent and not as principal with respect to the Transaction and (ii) JPMSI has no obligation or liability, by way of guaranty, endorsement or otherwise, in any manner in respect of the Transaction
(including, if applicable, in respect of the settlement thereof); 

c.        each of Counterparty and Dealer will look solely to the other party
(or any guarantor in respect thereof) for performance of such other party’s obligations under the Transaction; and 
 d.        this agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if all of the signatures thereto
and hereto were upon the same instrument. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 







  
 
			
	Very truly yours,
	
	J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as agent for JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jason M. Wood

	 Authorized Signatory

	 Name:
	 	 Jason M. Wood

Managing Director



 Accepted and confirmed: 
 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 

 

			
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Brett A. Pletcher

	 Name:
	 	 Brett A. Pletcher

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel
### §390h–19. Williamson County, Texas, water recycling and reuse project

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse water in Williamson County, Texas.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the costs of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1637, formerly §1636, as added Pub. L. 108–316, §1(b), Oct. 5, 2004, 118 Stat. 1202; renumbered §1637, Pub. L. 109–70, §2(a)(1), Sept. 21, 2005, 119 Stat. 2009.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 390h–17a of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 109–70.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 3540

_____________________________
L EON W OODBERRY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Stephen S. Everett , Judge

.

March 13, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and R AY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Victor D. Holder
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles "Charlie" Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2954 

To suspend temporarily the duty on manganese metal flake containing at 

least 99.5 percent by weight of manganese. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on manganese metal flake 

containing at least 99.5 percent by weight of manganese. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANGANESE METAL FLAKE CONTAINING AT 

4 LEAST 99.5 PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF MAN5 GANESE. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2954 IH 

‘‘ 9902.81.01 Manganese metal flake containing at least 99.5 percent 

by weight of manganese 

(provided for in subheading 

8111.00.47) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

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

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ
#### In the Matter of Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Respondent, v Department of Health of the State of New York et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel an increase in petitioner’s 1972 rate of reimbursement for services rendered to Medicaid patients, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 1, 1977, which, after a hearing held pursuant to a prior order of this court *(Matter of Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens v Department of Health of State of N. Y.,*54 AD2d 933), vacated that rate and directed its recomputation. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, the determination denying petitioner’s application for a revision of its 1972 rate of reimbursement is confirmed, and proceeding dismissed. It cannot be said that the commissioner’s determination of petitioner’s application for an upward revision of its 1972 rates was arbitrary or capricious (see *Matter of St. Lukes Hosp. Center v Ingraham,*43 NY2d 771, affg 52 AD2d 181). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### BENJAMIN S. ALLARD *v.*COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES

(AC 26041)

Lavery, C. J., and Flynn and Dupont, Js.

Argued June 6

officially released June 28, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine L. Jackson, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.