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

BOBBY W. ENDSLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-O990 FCD GGH P

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff is proceeding against in this action against the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department

and several individual employees of that department. On June 17, 2005, the court ordered

plaintiff to send further information as to one of the defendant’s, Yolo County Sheriff’s Dept.

Correctional Officer Banuelos, because process directed to that individual had been returned

unserved as “undeliverable.” Plaintiff was given 60 days to return the completed USM-285

form as to defendant Banuelos as well as two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed on

October 18, 2004. On June 17, 2005, three of the defendants filed their answer, the County of

Yolo, and defendants Fristoe and Gaines.

On August 25, 2005, plaintiff sent a letter asking that his case be dropped until he

is out of prison due to apparent difficulties he is having in responding to the court’s June 17,

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 09/12/05 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

2005 order. He seeks dismissal without prejudice of this action; however, plaintiff appears not to

realize that once his action is voluntarily dismissed, he may only proceed by filing a new action. 

The court will grant plaintiff an additional 60 days to respond to the June 17, 2005

order. If he is unable to access the required information with respect to defendant Banuelos by

way of discovery, the California Public Records Act, Cal. Govt. Code, § 6250, or any other

available means and his access is denied or unreasonably delayed, he may seek judicial

intervention, as he was informed in the court’s earlier order on this subject. If he seeks to

proceed only against those defendants who have been served and have answered, he may proceed

in this action and defendant Banuelos can be dismissed without dismissal of the entire action.

Should plaintiff seek voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the entire action, he

must so inform the court within 30 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/12/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

ends0990.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUHTAMAKI FOODSERVICE, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1494 LKK JFM

vs.

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On September 30, 2005, defendant filed a motion to compel production of

documents and responses to interrogatories. (Docket No. 48.) This motion was accompanied by

a request for an order shortening time for hearing on a motion to compel discovery. (Docket No.

49.) In its affidavit, defendant stated he spoke with counsel for plaintiff by telephone on

September 30, 2005 and informed him that defendant would file an application for hearing on

shortened time, and stated counsel for plaintiff voiced no objection to the filings and indicated he

likely would file a motion as well.

On October 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents

and responses to interrogatories. (Docket No. 52.) Plaintiff did not file a separate request for

order shortening time, but stated in its motion that plaintiff requests its motion be heard

contemporaneously with defendant’s motion to compel to maintain judicial economy. 

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 69 Filed 10/11/05 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

On October 3, 2005, defendant filed an amended motion to compel (Docket No.

60) and an amended affidavit in support of its request for order shortening time (Docket No. 66). 

The parties have not complied with Local Rule 6-144(e), and the record reflects

they have complied with that rule in the past (see September 16, 2005 joint application for order

shortening time submitted to the district court). However, both counsel state they are in the

process of meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve their discovery disputes and agree their

motions are prematurely brought solely for the purpose of reserving space on this court’s October

20, 2005 calendar. Because it appears both parties agree these motions may be heard on October

20, 2005, defendant’s request for order shortening time will be granted, and the motions will be

calendared for hearing on October 20, 2005, before the undersigned. Counsel are reminded of

their obligation to file a joint stipulation re discovery disagreements at least three days prior to

that hearing date. Local Rule 37-251(c). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s September 30, 2005 and October 3, 2005 applications for an order

shortening time are granted (Docket Nos.50 and 66);

2. Defendant’s October 3, 2005 amended motion to compel shall be heard on

October 20, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom No. 26 before the undersigned (Docket No. 60);

and

3. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2005 motion to compel shall be heard on October 20,

2005, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom No. 26 before the undersigned (Docket No. 52). 

DATED: October 11, 2005.

001

huhtamaki.ost

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 69 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Paul L. Berns, certify that:

 

1.                       I have reviewedthis Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of AllosTherapeutics, Inc.; and

 

2.                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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.

 

 
| Date: September 1,  2010 | /s/ PAUL L. BERNS                                                  |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Paul  L. Berns                                                          |
| * *                      | *President  and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 24, 2010
    
    /s/ Lai Ni QuiaqueName:
    
    Lai Ni QuiaqueTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VANESSA RACINE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

PHW LAS VEGAS, LLC, DBA Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino; PHW MANAGER, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16707

D.C. No.

2:10

- cv

- 01651

- LDG

- VCF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 17, 2016 ** San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In this diversity action, Vanessa Racine sued PHW Las Vegas, LLC and PHW

Manager, LLC (collectively, “Planet Hollywood”) for failing to prevent her from

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

OCT 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

being assaulted at the Las Vegas Planet Hollywood hotel. The district court granted

summary judgment for Planet Hollywood, and we affirm.

1. To establish negligence under Nevada law, Racine was required to offer

evidence that “[p]rior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises”

or that Planet Hollywood “failed to exercise due care.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 651.015(3).

The prior incidents she identified

, however, either did not occur in the hotel towers

of the Planet Hollywood property or involved different levels of violence

, and thus

were not sufficiently “similar” wr ongful acts. See Estate of Smith ex rel. Smith v.

Mahoney’s Silver Nugget, Inc. , 265 P.3d 688, 692

– 93 (Nev. 2011). Moreover,

Planet Hollywood’s failure to locate and apprehend the assailant within fifteen

minutes of learning of a previous assault on Plan et Hollywood property was not a

failure to exercise due care. See id. at 691

– 92 (defining due care as “minimum

precautions”).

2. Nor did Racine present evidence that Planet Hollywood acted with gross

negligence, defined in Nevada as without “even a slight degree of care.” Hart v.

Kline , 116 P.2d 672, 674 (Nev. 1941). Planet Hollywood’s on

- site security officers

timely responded to initial complaints about the assailant made earlier that night and

promptly contacted local police.3

3. Having failed to estab lish a right to compensatory damages, Racine was

not entitled to punitive damages. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1) (permitting

punitive damages “in addition to the compensatory damages”).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



CA, Inc. Change in Control Severance Policy 
(Amended and Restated as of August 5, 2015)


(Schedule as of November 7, 2016)


Schedule A
(2.99 Multiple)


Chief Executive Officer (Michael P. Gregoire)
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Kieran J. McGrath)
President, Global Field Operations (Adam Elster)
President, Chief Products Officer (Ayman Sayed)




[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule B
(2.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer (Lauren P. Flaherty)
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (Michael C. Bisignano)


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule C
(1.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development (Jacob Lamm)  
Executive Vice President, Global Operations and Information Technology (Paul L. Pronsati)


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-337-806


Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 
or (202) 482-0196, respectively.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department of Commerce (``Department'') to issue 
the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days 
after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a 
review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines 
to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

Background

    On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries 
from Chile, covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 
2006). The preliminary results for this administrative review are 
currently due no later than April 2, 2007.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    The Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and 
verify the sales and cost information submitted by the parties in this 
administrative review. Moreover, the Department requires additional 
time to issue supplemental questionnaires and fully analyze the 
responses. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within 
the original time limit (i.e., April 2, 2007). Therefore, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results to not later than July 31, 2007, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 05, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4318 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
EXHIBIT 10.2



 





FIRST
AMENDMENT TO


AKERS
BIOSCIENCES, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2013 INCENTIVE STOCK AND AWARD
PLAN


 


This
First Amendment to the Akers Biosciences, Inc. Amended and Restated 2013 Incentive Stock and Award Plan will amend the Amended
and Restated 2013 Incentive Stock and Award Plan (the “Original Plan”) as follows:


 


		1.	Section
                                         4 of the Original Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


4.
Stock Reserved for the Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 8 hereof, a total of up to 830,000 shares of
the Company’s common stock, no par value per share (the “Stock”), shall be subject to the Plan. The maximum
number of shares of Stock that may be subject to Options shall conform to any requirements applicable to performance-based compensation
under Section 162(m) of the Code, if qualification as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code is intended.
The shares of Stock subject to the Plan shall consist of unissued shares, treasury shares or previously issued shares held by
any Subsidiary of the Company, and such amount of shares of Stock shall be and is hereby reserved for such purpose. Any of such
shares of Stock that may remain unsold and that are not subject to outstanding Options at the termination of the Plan shall cease
to be reserved for the purposes of the Plan, but until termination of the Plan the Company shall at all times reserve a sufficient
number of shares of Stock to meet the requirements of the Plan. Should any Option or Restricted Stock expire or be canceled prior
to its exercise or vesting in full or should the number of shares of Stock to be delivered upon the exercise or vesting in full
of any Option or Restricted Stock be reduced for any reason, the shares of Stock theretofore subject to such Option or Restricted
Stock may be subject to future Options or Restricted Stock under the Plan, except where such reissuance is inconsistent with the
provisions of Section 162(m) of the Code where qualification as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code
is intended.
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

AN ACT 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

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

†S 460 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Indian Health 

3 Confer Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION CONFER POLICY. 

5 Section 514 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

6 Act (25 U.S.C. 1660d) is amended by striking subsection 

7 (b) and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall ensure 

9 that the Service and the other agencies and offices of the 

10 Department confer, to the maximum extent practicable, 

11 with urban Indian organizations in carrying out— 

12 ‘‘(1) this Act; and 

13 ‘‘(2) other provisions of law relating to Indian 

14 health care.’’. 

Passed the Senate July 18, 2023. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

AN ACT 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Human Services. confer policy for the Department of Health and Act to establish an urban Indian organization
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of June, 2010.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

- 1 - 

Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP 

Daniel L. Egan, Bar No. 142631 

degan@wilkefleury.com

Erin E. Weber, Bar No. 221279 

eweber@wilkefleury.com

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

E-mail: degan@wilkefleury.com

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants/Counter 

Claimants 

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA, CO.; TOGO‘S 

EATERIES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA, 

LLC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JYM CORPORATION 

vs. 

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA, CO.; TOGO‘S 

EATERIES, INC. 

Third-Party Defendants., 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2553 FCD GGH 

STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING 

ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 

Date: February 10, 2006 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Judge: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA, CO.; TOGO‘S 

EATERIES, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant, 

v. 

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA, 

LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive, 

Counter-Defendants. 

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 71 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CIV.S-04-2553 FCD GGH

- 2 - 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Baskin Robbins Co., Inc. and Togo’s 

Eateries, Inc. (“Baskin/Togo’s”) have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against QuesTech 

Financial California, LLC, which is currently on calendar for February 10, 2006; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle the action; 

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, that the 

hearing on calendar for February 10, 2006 for the summary judgment motion filed by CrossDefendant and Cross-Claimant Baskin/Togo’s be vacated. 

DATED: January 30, 2006 /S/ 

STEPHEN LERNER 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

DATED: January 30, 2006 /S/ 

DANIEL L. EGAN 

Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on calendar for February 10, 2006 for the 

summary judgment motion filed by Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Baskin/Togo’s against 

QuesTech Financial California, LLC be vacated, as stipulated herein. 

DATED: February 1, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 HONORABLE FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

204304.1 

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 71 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| (1)   | the                quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Debut Broadcasting Corporation Inc.                for                the quarter ended June 30, 2008 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the                quarter                ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the                financial condition and results of operations of Debut Broadcasting                Corporation Inc. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Steven                Ludwig            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Steven                Ludwig               |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer |
| Date:  | August                19, 2008             |
|   |                                       |
| By:    | /s/                Sariah Hopkins          |
| Name:  | Sariah                Hopkins              |
| Title: | Principal                Financial Officer |
| Date:  | August                19, 2008             |

----
No. 48532.

#### Protests 621993-G, etc., of Banca Commercial Italiana et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the. ■court dismissed the protests.