alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-03-0223 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANE L D AUGUST 12 , 2003

______________________________ ED CAIN, HARDIN COUN TY SHERIFF AND DAV ID A. SHE FFIELD , COU NTY A TTORNEY, A PPE LLANTS V. KEVIN W ILSON, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE356 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARDIN COUNTY; NO. 42,906; HON ORABLEBRITT PLUN K, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPB ELL, JJ. MEM ORANDU M OPIN ION Ed Cai n and Dav id S hef field , ap pella nts , ap pea l thetria l cou rt’ s or der den yingthe ir plea to its jurisdiction. We must dism iss the appeal. Appellants’ brief was due June 30, 2003. By letter dated July 9, 2003, we notified appe llants that the due date for the brief had passed, and that we had rece ived n eithe r their brief nor a motion for extension of ti me to file it. Ci ting Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.8, the2

letter also notified appellants that the appea l would be subject to dismissal unl ess a response reasonably explaining their failure to file a bri ef, together with a showing that the appellee has not

been significantly injured by the failure, wassubm itted by July 22, 2003. Appellants have not filed such a response, nor have they since subm itte d a brief o r a mot ion for extension of tim e. Accord ingl y, ha vi ng gi ve n a ll pa rt ie s mor e t ha n t he re qu ir ed te n d ay s’ n ot ic e, we dismiss the app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P ROC . 38.8(a )(1); 42. 3(b).

James T . C am pbe ll Justice
Cindy Renee MCCLOUD, DOC #369883, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
WESTON JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2940

Opinion filed July 24, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Weston Jackson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 233 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 233

To prohibit the availability of Federal funds to institutions of higher 
  education that conduct painful biomedical research on dogs and cats.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2025

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                the Committee on Education and Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the availability of Federal funds to institutions of higher 
  education that conduct painful biomedical research on dogs and cats.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Loses Payments for 
Painful Experiments, Tests and Studies Act'' or the ``HELP PETS Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO INSTITUTIONS OF 
              HIGHER EDUCATION THAT CONDUCT PAINFUL RESEARCH USING DOGS 
              AND CATS.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, no Federal funds may be made 
available to any institution of higher education that conducts or 
funds, in whole or in part, painful research on dogs or cats.
    (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
            (1) clinical veterinary research; or
            (2) any physical exam, training program, or study relating 
        to service animals or military animals.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Clinical veterinary research.--The term ``clinical 
        veterinary research'' means research on a dog or cat with a 
        naturally occurring disease or injury that is conducted--
                    (A) for the benefit of the dog or cat; and
                    (B) with the intention of studying the effect of a 
                procedure, device, or treatment protocol.
            (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
        ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
        term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 1002).
            (3) Military animal.--The term ``military animal'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 2583(i)(1) of title 10, 
        United States Code.
            (4) Painful research.--The term ``painful research'' 
        includes any research, biomedical training, experimentation, or 
        biological testing classified in pain category D or E by the 
        Department of Agriculture.
            (5) Service animal.--The term ``service animal'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 37.3 of title 49, Code of 
        Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
Angela Brant BATHELEMY v. DOLGENCORP, LLC d/b/a Dollar General

2019-CC-0310

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 1ST CITY COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Genovese, J., would grant this writ for the reasons assigned by Judge Jenkins.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

I would grant the writ application filed by Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General for reasons assigned in Judge Jenkins' dissent, which Judge Dysart also joined.
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 

BLACKLINE, INC. 2014 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

This Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment”) to the BlackLine, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (f/k/a the SLS Breeze Holdings,
Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”) is made by BlackLine, Inc. (“BlackLine”) on August 26, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). 

WHEREAS, the BlackLine Board of Directors and Shareholders adopted the Plan on March 3, 2014; 

WHEREAS, the BlackLine Board of Directors and Shareholders adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, each on February 25, 2015;

 WHEREAS, the BlackLine Board of Directors and a majority of its Shareholders approved an amendment to the Plan on August 5,
2015 and August 24, 2015, respectively, authorizing an increased number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued as Stock Awards; and 

WHEREAS, BlackLine desires to amend the Plan in a manner consistent with the foregoing amendments. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is modified as follows. 

1. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 

2. Section 3(a) of the Plan, shall be replaced in its entire with the following: 

“Share Reserve. Subject to the provisions of Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate number of shares of
Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards beginning on the Effective Date shall not exceed 30,646,185 shares (the “Share Reserve”). Furthermore, if a Stock Award (i) expires or otherwise terminates without having
been executed in full or (ii) is settled in cash (i.e., the holder of the Stock Award receives cash rather than stock), such expiration, termination or settlement shall not reduce (or otherwise offset) the number of shares of Common Stock that
may be issued pursuant to the Plan. For clarity, the limitation set forth in this Section 3(a) is a limitation in the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to the Plan. Accordingly, this Section 3(a) does not limit the
granting of Stock Awards except as provided in Section 7(a).” 
 3. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all of the terms and
provisions of the Plan are and will remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BlackLine has caused the officer set forth below to execute this Amendment as of the
Amendment Effective Date. 
  

			
	BLACKLINE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Therese Tucker
		
	Name:	 	Therese Tucker
		
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
		
	Date:	 	 8-26-2015
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14192

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80017-DMM

AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CONNOR LOGAN, individually,

THIERRY GENOYER, individually,

LUKE GENOYER, individually,

 Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 4, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-14192 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

PER CURIAM: 

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Alternative 

Insurance Company (“AAIC”). AAIC issued an umbrella policy of insurance to 

Thierry Genoyer as the named insured and seeks a declaration that it has no duty to 

defend or indemnify Connor Logan, Thierry Genoyer and Luke Genoyer 

(“Defendants”) in connection with a personal injury action Logan brought against 

the Genoyers in a Florida state court.1

 The Defendants concede that the “crossliability exclusion” of the AAIC bars coverage for Logan’s claims against the 

Genoyers, but argue that they are entitled to coverage under the policy based on 

promissory estoppel. The District Court rejected Defendants’ promissory estoppel 

argument and granted AAIC summary judgment in an order entered on August 20, 

2015. Defendants appeal the judgment. We affirm, concluding for the reasons 

stated in the District Court’s order that Defendants failed to establish a case of 

promissory estoppel as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED. 

 1

 Logan seeks damages for the injuries he sustained when he lost control of a vehicle 

entrusted to him by Luke Genoyer, with the permission of his father, Thierry Genoyer, and 

struck a tree. 

Case: 15-14192 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2016410EN.01003002.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/30

---

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-685/16)

(2016/C 410/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘B2B SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 016 224

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 in Case R 244/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016;

| — | annul EUIPO’s decision at first instance dated 9 December 2015 by which the reference mark was refused in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul EUIPO’s decision at first instance dated 9 December 2015 by which the reference mark was refused in its entirety;

| — | amend the earlier decisions allowing the grant of the trade mark of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the earlier decisions allowing the grant of the trade mark of the applicant;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2016383EN.01001801.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/18

---

Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)

(Case T-456/16)

(2016/C 383/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hug AG (Malters, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GULLON DARVIDA’ — Application for registration No 11 705 738

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 773/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 1 of 7 PageID 221
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 2 of 7 PageID 222
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 3 of 7 PageID 223
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 4 of 7 PageID 224
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 5 of 7 PageID 225
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 6 of 7 PageID 226
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 39 Filed 10/27/03 Page 7 of 7 PageID 227
Exhibit No. 32



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,

as adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -

Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer





In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Lorain Corporation (Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Si Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as 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; and

(2)

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





Dated: February 20,2008







/s/ Si Chen

Si Chen

Chief Executive Officer





In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Lorain Corporation (Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Huanxiang Cheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as 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; and

(2)

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





Dated: February 20, 2008





/s/ Jing Wu

Jing Wu

Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Lorain Corporation and will be retained by American Lorain Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129967 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129967 

 COA: 263558 

Berrien CC: 1999-411282-FH 

MARTIN WALLACE WHITWORTH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2005 

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

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

court initially declined to appoint counsel to assist defendant in filing an application for 

leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in this case. Appellate counsel has now been 

appointed, and an application for leave to appeal filed in the Court of Appeals. 

d0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1179

MARION TURK CULBERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KELLY NICHOLS, in her official capacity and individually; 

ANDERSON COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-01708-TMC)

Submitted: October 31, 2012 Decided: December 10, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles R. Griffin, Jr., THE GRIFFIN FIRM, L.L.C., Anderson, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephanie H. Burton, GIBBES 

BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Turk Culberson appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint

and dismissing without prejudice his state law claims of 

malicious prosecution, abuse of process, outrageous conduct, and 

negligence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Culberson v. Nichols, No. 8:11-cv-01708-TMC 

(D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.  350), the undersigned, Joseph Skeehan, Chief Financial Officer of JMG Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the  filing  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  of the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report").  The undersigned certifies that:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 30th day of November 2007.   JMG EXPLORATION, INC.  /s/ Joseph Skeehan Name: Joseph Skeehan Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 111 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 111

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 
                deduction for health insurance premiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 
                deduction for health insurance premiums.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating section 224 
as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new 
section:

``SEC. 224. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    ``In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a 
deduction for the taxable year amounts paid by the taxpayer for 
insurance which constitutes medical care (as defined in section 213(d)) 
for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents. No amount 
allowed as a deduction under the preceding sentence shall be taken into 
account in determining any deduction or credit otherwise allowable to 
the taxpayer (or any other taxpayer) under this chapter.''.
    (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes Other 
Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code is amended by 
inserting before the last sentence at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(22) Deduction for health insurance premiums.--The 
        deduction allowed by section 224.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by redesignating the 
item relating to section 224 as an item relating to section 225 and by 
inserting after the item relating to section 223 the following new 
item:

``Sec. 224. Deduction for health insurance premiums.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
GRACE RANCH, LLC v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al.

NO. 2018-C-1655

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.