alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 134A/3 ta

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 134A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 573 ta' Mejju 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 134A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 573 ta' Mejju 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rettifika |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni ġenerali — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Amministraturi (AD 7) fl-oqsma li ġejjin: 1. Il-forensika diġitali 2. L-analiżi operattiva — (Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 88 A tas-27 ta’ Marzu 2014) | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

Rettifika

2014/C 134A/01

Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni ġenerali — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Amministraturi (AD 7) fl-oqsma li ġejjin: 1. Il-forensika diġitali 2. L-analiżi operattiva — (Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 88 A tas-27 ta’ Marzu 2014)

(Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 88 A tas-27 ta’ Marzu 2014)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni

2

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

Rettifika

| 3.5.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 134/1

---

Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni ġenerali

EPSO/AD/278/14 – AMMINISTRATURI (AD 7)

fl-oqsma li ġejjin:

| 1. | IL-FORENSIKA DIĠITALI |
| --- | --- |

1.

IL-FORENSIKA DIĠITALI

| 2. | L-ANALIŻI OPERATTIVA |
| --- | --- |

2.

L-ANALIŻI OPERATTIVA

(Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
  C 88 A tas-27 ta’ Marzu 2014
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

F’paġna 7, Taqsima VIII, punt 1:

minflok:

“Data ta' skadenza (inkluża l-validazzjoni): id-29 ta' April 2014 f'12:00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta' Brussell”,

aqra:

“Data ta' skadenza (inkluża l-validazzjoni): is-6 ta' Mejju 2014 f'12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta' Brussell.”.

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 134/2

---

REVIŻJONI TAL-ĠURNALI UFFIĊJALI C A KOMPETIZZJONI

2014/C 134 A/02

Hawn taħt għandek issib il-lista ta' C A ppubblikati matul din is-sena.

Ħlief meta indikat mod ieħor, il-Ġurnali Uffiċjali huma ppubblikati fil-lingwi kollha.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

---
**Exhibit 99.02**

**ZAMBA CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Each of the undersigned, Norman D. Smith and MichaelH. Carrel, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”), individually and notjointly has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the “Report”).

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

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

 

•                    the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hasexecuted this Certification as of the 14th day of November, 2002.
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Norm Smith                             |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Norman D. Smith  Chief Executive Officer   |
|   |   |   |   |                                       |
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                      |
|   |   |   |   | Michael H. Carrel  Chief Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,841
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         96,575
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,754
<DEPOSITS>                                     111,371
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,038
<LONG-TERM>                                        193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,073
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 126,754
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,109
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  830
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,939
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,279
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,395
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,544
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      365
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  77
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,483
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,573
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.45
<LOANS-NON>                                         58
<LOANS-PAST>                                       405
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    90
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    931
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,267
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      158
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,485
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,485
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY ANDRE SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

K. KUMAR; L. GAMBOA, M.D.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16444

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv

- 05720

- BLF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Andre Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical need s . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We revi ew de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* 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

APR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16444

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant s were

deliberately indifferent to his chronic foot pain. See id. 1057

- 60 (a prison official

is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive

risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment,

medical malpractice, and negli gence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition

do not amo unt to deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner , 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th

Cir. 2006) ( delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate

indifference ).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Smith’s contention that the district

court failed to consider the entir e record.

Smith’s request for costs

, set forth in his opening brief

, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Garrison S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD; Kelly Harrington, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15967

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 3, 2017

Garrison S. Johnson, Pro Se

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, Rosailda Perez, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Garrison S. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection violation in connection with Inmate Advisory Council (“IAC”) elections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo questions of constitutional standing. *Maya v. Centex Corp.,*658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action on the ground that Johnson lacked constitutional standing because Johnson failed to show that the challenged prison regulations concerning the IAC elections resulted in a concrete and particularized injury to Johnson. *See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (setting forth elements of Article III standing); *Carroll v. Nakatani,*342 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While racial classification is subject to strict scrutiny, a plaintiff, to challenge such classification, must establish standing through showing a particularized denial of equal treatment.”); *Arakaki v. Hawaii,*314 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Hawaiian statutory and constitutional provisions that required that the appointed trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”) be citizens of Hawaiian ancestry because neither plaintiff had been denied appointment as OHA trustee).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s action for lack of Article III standing, we do not reach other issues raised by the parties regarding the equal protection claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for reconsideration because Johnson failed to establish grounds for such relief. *See Garamendi v. Henin,*683 F.3d 1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); *Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,*248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

*584We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Donald Scott JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph MCFADDEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6897

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 22, 2016

Decided: June 2, 2017

Donald Scott Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Scott Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in- the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
|        |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                                                      |        |                          |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| /s/Phillip G. Creek                                  |   | Date:  February 28, 2011 |
| Phillip G. Creek                                     |   |                     |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |                     |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          76,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                       492
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,996
<PP&E>                                         135,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,467
<SALES>                                        262,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               262,504
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  219,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000844

12-MAR-2019

07:51 AM
The SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE, INC., etc., et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The MACKNIGHT FOOD GROUP, INC., etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1803

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
NaviSite, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
333-112087 on Form S-2, 333-117543 on Form S-3, 333-117545, 333-111165,
333-89987, 333-67786, 333-67774, 333-56454, 333-56452 and 333-56478 on Form S-8
of NaviSite, Inc. of our report dated November 1, 2004, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of NaviSite, Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 31,
2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in
the three-year period ended July 31, 2004, and our report dated November 1, 2004
relating to the consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports are
included in the July 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.

     The reports of KPMG LLP on the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule contain an explanatory paragraph
that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations since
inception and has an accumulated deficit, as well as other factors, that raise
substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
November 2, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the Consolidated Statements of Operations 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         905454
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123565
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46828
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1184568 
<PP&E>                                         982240
<DEPRECIATION>                                 328652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               21642713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          650192
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                        53
<COMMON>                                       209348
<OTHER-SE>                                   20783120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 21642713
<SALES>                                        169650 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198793
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             10075188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (10064644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (10064644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                               (10064644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.51)
<FN>

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line item on the Balance 
Sheet or Statement of Operations are reported as 0 herein.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
John METZGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leyda Miranda CAMPS as mother and next best friend of LHP, Appellant, v. Philip A. PIKE, Northern Trust Company and Caroline Pike, Appellees.

No. 4D16-3388

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



Summary of the Registrant's Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers


	
			
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary for 2018

	F. Thomson Leighton
Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$1

	James Benson
Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$500,000

	Aaron Ahola
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	 
	$425,000

	Robert Blumofe
EVP - Platform & General Manager Enterprise Division
	 
	$490,000

	James Gemmell
Executive Vice President - CHRO
	 
	$450,000

	Adam Karon
EVP and General Manager Media Division
	 
	$450,000

	Rick McConnell
President and General Manager Web Division 
	 
	$565,000

	William Wheaton
Chief Strategy Officer
	 
	$420,000
Order filed October 11, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00434-CV

____________

IN THE ESTATE OF KIMBERLIE DENISE MENARD, INCAPACITATED

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 261740-401

O R D E R

Appellant Jessie Smith’s brief was due October 1, 2018. No brief or motion 

for extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 31, 2018, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM