alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1903 MCE DAD P

vs.

ROACH, et al., ORDER REQUIRING

Defendants. STATUS REPORT

 /

This matter has now been at issue for sufficient time that it may be ready to be set

for trial. Plaintiff and defendants shall therefore each submit to the court and serve by mail on all

other parties the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary and, if so, the nature and

scope of the discovery and the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated and, if so, the type of motion and

the time needed to file the motion and complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-

230(m);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary

evidence at trial;

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any incarcerated witnesses;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury; and

 10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the

attention of the court.

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a

United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the United States Court

of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Any party

choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the

magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent

form unless all parties to the action have consented.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s status report shall be filed and served within thirty days from the

date of service of this order. Defendants’ status report shall be filed within thirty days thereafter. 

The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in accordance with this order may result

in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action or preclusion of issues or

witnesses.

2. The clerk of the court is directed to mail to all parties the form “Consent to

Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge,” together with the instant order.

DATED: July 25, 2006.

DAD:lg

cruz1903.40

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.(a).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 Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our 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.




Date: March 16, 2010




By: /s/ David Avner

——————————————

Name: David Avner

Title: Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 16, 2010




By: /s/ Emanuel Avner

——————————————

Name: Emanuel Avner

Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GREGORY S. MARSALA, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 124, 42 CMR 316

No. 23,074

November 6, 1970

*Captain Harry N. Lembeck,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We granted review to consider the correctness of the acceptance of the accused’s plea of guilty to a specification alleging unauthorized absence of approximately six weeks, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, and the effect on the sentence of the erroneous consideration of evidence of punishment under Article 15, Code, supra, 10 USC § 815, as determined in United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).

Our decision in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date, sustains the acceptance of the plea. The number and the nature of the acts of misconduct reflected in the record of the Article 15 punishment persuade us that there was a fair risk that the record affected the sentence. United States v Worrell, 19 USCMA 487, 42 CMR 89 (1970). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review as to the sentence and return the record of trial to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for redetermination of the sentence.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part):

*125I concur in part and dissent in part.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247 (1969). Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in *Palos,*supra.

I agree, however, with their determination that the sentence must be reassessed because of the erroneous consideration of evidence of punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 815. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970); United States v Worrell, 19 USCMA 487, 42 CMR 89 (1970).
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1152 MCE GGH P

vs.

J.G. ARCEO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 18, 2006, this court found plaintiff’s

May 2, 2005 amended complaint appropriate for service upon seven defendants as to certain

claims. By Findings and Recommendations filed concurrently with that order, the undersigned

has recommended dismissal of more than sixty (60) defendants from this action as well as

dismissal of various claims against several of the defendants for whom the court found service

appropriate. 

As noted in the court’s order filed on December 12, 2005, plaintiff had filed some

600-plus pages of exhibits with his amended complaint, exhibits he failed to cross-reference

within his allegations. See Order, filed on 12/12/05, p. 3. 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

At this time the court will strike plaintiff’s unwieldy and insufficiently organized

exhibits. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to provide plaintiff only with a copy of the fifteenpage filed, endorsed amended complaint, filed on May 2, 2005, but not to copy the voluminous

exhibits. Plaintiff will then need to provide the court, as ordered, along with the summons and

USM-285 forms, the requisite copies of the amended complaint (without being compelled to

provide copies of the massive number of exhibits) for the court to effect service. The exhibits are

stricken without prejudice, so that plaintiff may use any relevant exhibit among the stricken

documents for the purpose of bringing or opposing any motion or at trial. Although stricken

from the docket, the Clerk of the Court will retain the paper copy of the exhibits in the court’s

files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/21/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jenk1152.stk

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6905
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL A. LEE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Fr ederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-89-273, CA-95-76-5) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lee , Nos. CR-89-273; CA-95-76-5 (N.D.W. Va. May 24, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Michael J. Koss, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(i) the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 25, 2008              |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
| /s/ Michael J.  Koss                    |   |
|                                    |
| Michael J. Koss                         |
| Chief Executive Officer,  President and |
| Chief Financial Officer                 |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Morris B. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company, as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
| May  9, 2007 | /s/ Morris B. Smith                               |   |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Morris B. Smith                                   |   |
|              | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
# PubMed Central (PMC) Home Page

**

- Advanced
- Journal List

                        PubMed Central® (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM)                    

##                                 About PMC                                

                                    Discover a digital archive of scholarly articles, spanning centuries of scientific research.                                

##                                 User Guide                                

                                   Learn how to find and read articles of interest to you.                                

##                                 Collections                                

                                   Browse the PMC Journal List or learn about some of PMC's unique collections.                                

##                                 For Authors                                

                                   Navigate the PMC submission methods to comply with a funder mandate, expand access, and ensure preservation.                                

##                                 For Publishers                                

                                   Learn about deposit options for journals and publishers and the PMC selection process.                                

##                                 For Developers                                

                                   Find tools for bulk download, text mining, and other machine analysis.                                

## 10.2 MILLION articles are archived in PMC.

###### Content provided in part by:

## 2926

### Full Participation Journals

Journals deposit the complete contents of each issue or volume.

## 277

### NIH Portfolio Journals

Journals deposit all NIH-funded articles as defined by the NIH Public Access Policy.

## 44

### Selective Deposit Programs

Publisher deposits a subset of articles from a collection of journals.

## New in PMC

######  Sept. 16, 2024 

## PMC website update coming October 15 

  On October 15, 2024, PMC will transition to a new website. This update, available for preview since March 2024 for user test...

######  March 21, 2024 

## Preview Upcoming Improvements to PMC

                  We are pleased to announce the availability of a preview of improvements planned for the PMC website. These...

###### highlights

## Preview Upcoming Improvements to PMC

We are pleased to announce the availability of a preview of improvements planned for the PMC website. These improvements will become the default in October 2024.
Read More
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.26.19+





AMENDMENT NO. 19
TO THE
SYNC GENERATION 2 ON-BOARD NAVIGATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND TELENAV, INC.


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 19 (“Amendment”), effective as of December 1, 2015 (“Amendment Effective Date”) supplements and amends the terms of the SYNC Generation 2 On-Board Navigation Agreement, dated October 12, 2009 (“Agreement”), by and between Ford Motor Company (“Buyer” or “Ford”), a Delaware corporation with its principal office at One American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48126, on behalf of itself and the Ford Related Companies, and Telenav, Inc. (formerly known as TeleNav, Inc.) (“Supplier” or “Telenav”), a Delaware corporation with its principal office at 950 De Guigne Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, on behalf of itself and the Telenav Related Companies.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:


		
	1.
	In Attachment V, Section 2c, delete “[*****]” in its entirety and replace it with the following pricing matrix:




	
			
	Description
	Value

	[*****]
	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	[*****]
	$[*****]

	 
	 Global NRE subtotal
	$[*****]

	[*****] as of 12/1/2015
	$[*****]

	 
	Grand Total
	$[*****]






As of December 1, 2015, the parties agree that the “[*****]” referenced above accurately and completely reflect all [*****] program over payments.










	
			
	12/16/2015
	Page 1 of 2
	 









Except as modified and amended by this Amendment, the terms of the Agreement are ratified and confirmed by the parties hereto.  This Amendment is incorporated into and made a part of the Agreement by the parties.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment by their authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.




	
					
	FORD MOTOR COMPANY
	 
	TELENAV, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/Melissa Sheahan
	 
	By:
	/s/ Michael Strambi

	 
	(Signature)
	 
	 
	(Signature)

	Name:
	Melissa Sheahan
	 
	Name:
	Michael Strambi

	 
	(Printed Name)
	 
	 
	(Printed Name)

	Title:
	Sync Software Buyer
	 
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer

	Date:
	12/17/2015
	 
	Date:
	1/6/2016

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 












[*****] Certain portions denoted with an asterisk have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.




	
			
	12/16/2015
	Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0198 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0198

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (17032/2/2006 - C6-0101/2007 - 2004/0154(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0276 - 0276 *

P6_TA(2007)0198

Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (17032/2/2006 — C6-0101/2007 — 2004/0154(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (17032/2/2006 — C6-0101/2007) [1],

- having regard to its position at first reading [2] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0475),

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2006)0245),

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0169/2007);

1. Approves the common position;

2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

4. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 103 E, 8.5.2007, p. 26.

[2] OJ C 272 E, 9.11.2006, p. 404.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 49658.

#### Petition 6396-R of W. C. Sullivan & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The petition was dismissed.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHLEEN CHANDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, an

Arizona Limited Liability

Company, Does 1 to 20,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-04-2218 DFL/JFM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the court’s March 18,

2005 order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. A motion for

reconsideration will not be granted, absent exceptional

circumstances, unless a party provides newly discovered evidence,

the court committed clear error, or there is an intervening

change of law. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff requests reconsideration on the basis of clear

error. The request is DENIED. To date, plaintiff has failed to

cite a single California Building Code section that could raise a

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 23 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

presumption of negligence in this case. Nor does the court’s

order prevent plaintiff from suing to recover for her injuries. 

Plaintiff’s general negligence claim remains in this action and

is the proper vehicle through which she may present her case. 

Finally, the court did not find that plaintiff’s negligence per

se claim is “trumped” by the Americans with Disabilities Act;

this claim was dismissed because plaintiff cannot raise a

presumption of negligence through defendant’s alleged violation

of disability access building codes. (3/18/2005 Order at 4.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend her negligence per se claim to

add citations to various California Building Code sections and

statutes is also DENIED. The proffered code sections and

statutes do not provide a valid basis for a negligence per se

claim here. Therefore, amendment would be futile. DeSoto v.

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Finally, plaintiff requests certification for an

interlocutory appeal of the court’s order. This motion is also

DENIED. The order does not involve questions of law as to which

there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 23 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2