alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 41 

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

1 

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

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

Maia C. Kats (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

mkats@cspinet.org 

Matthew B. Simon (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

msimon@cspinet.org 

1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 3000 

Washington, District of Columbia 20005 

Telephone: (202) 777-8381 

REESE LLP 

Michael R. Reese (State Bar No. 206773) 

mreese@reesellp.com 

100 W. 93rd Street, 16th floor 

New York, New York 10025 

Telephone: (212) 643-0500 

THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE 

Andrew Rainer (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

arainer@phaionline.org 

360 Huntington Ave., Suite 117 CU 

Boston, Massachusetts 02115 

Telephone: (617) 373-2026 

Counsel for Plaintiff The Praxis Project 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

THE PRAXIS PROJECT, a non-profit 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and 

AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL CIVIL 

PROCEDURE RULE 41(a)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-JSC Document 17 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 2
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 41 

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

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

27

28

TO THE COURT AND CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff The Praxis 

Project (“Praxis” or “Plaintiff”) hereby gives notice of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice 

of its above-captioned action against defendants The Coca-Cola Company and the American 

Beverage Association. 

Date: February 23, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE LLP 

 

 /s/ Michael R. Reese 

Michael R. Reese 

mreese@reesellp.com 

100 W. 93rd Street, 16th floor 

New York, New York 10025 

Telephone: (212) 643-0500 

Maia C. Kats 

mkats@cspinet.org

Matthew B. Simon 

msimon@cspinet.org 

Center for Science in the Public Interest 

 1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300 

 Washington, District of Columbia 20005 

 Telephone: (202) 777-8381 

Andrew Rainer 

arainer@phaionline.org

The Public Health Advocacy Institute 

360 Huntington Ave., Suite 117 CU 

Boston, Massachusetts 02115 

Telephone: (617) 373-2026 

 Counsel for Plaintiff The Praxis Project 

Case 3:17-cv-00016-JSC Document 17 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 2
Order entered September 21, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01143-CR

APRIL MICHELLE FLOYD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR18-0971

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 18, 2020 motion for additional 

time to file her pro se response to the Anders brief filed on May 21, 2020. We

GRANT appellant’s pro se motion and ORDER her pro se response due on 

October 21, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to appellant at the 

address on file with the Court.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit
32.1





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 Quarterly Report of China Housing & Land Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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:
      November 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Xiaohong FengXiaohong
      Feng(Chief
      Executive Officer)
Samuel Lee LIGHTSEY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2308

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Franklin v. State*, 258 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2018) ; *State v. Michel*, 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018).
IIA 

Calendar No. 48 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 14 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 

Agency relating to ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards 

for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2021 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. KING, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SMITH, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. CASEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. REED, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. PETERS, and 

Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

APRIL 26, 2021 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed 

on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 14 PCS 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Ad4 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relat5 ing to ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards 

6 for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review’’ 

7 (85 Fed. Reg. 57018 (September 14, 2020)), and such 

8 rule shall have no force or effect. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 48 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 14 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapModified Sources Review’’. Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Agency relating to ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: submitted by the Environmental Protection ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

APRIL 26, 2021 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

802(c), and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Motion to Recall Mandate Granted; Order filed November 8, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-07-00047-CV

NO. 14-10-01149-CV

MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ GUILBOT, CARLOS A. GONZALEZ GUILBOT, 

AND MARIA ROSA DEL ARENAL DE GONZALEZ, Appellants

V.

MARIA DEL CARMEN GUILBOT SERROS DE GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MIGUEL 

ANGEL LUIS GONZALEZ Y VALLEJO, LUIS AMADEO GONZALEZ 

GUILBOT, JOSE GUILLERMO GONZALEZ GUILBOT, CARMEN ISABEL

GONZALEZ GUILBOT DE URIARTE, GERARDO GONZALEZ GUILBOT, 

JAVIER GONZALEZ GUILBOT, MADEIRA INTERNATIONAL LTD., 

FRANCEVILLE INTERNATIONAL LTD., ARKHANGEL INTERNATIONAL 

LTD., L&T AMERICAN CORPORATION, TG INTERAMERICA 

CORPORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court Number Two

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 344,157-401

O R D E R

This court previously ordered the appeal in Cause No. 14-07-00047-CV and the 

appeal in Cause No. 14-10-01149-CV consolidated. On March 29, 2012, this court 
2

issued its opinion and judgment in these consolidated appeals. On July 31, 2012, 

appellants Miguel Angel Gonzalez Guilbot, Carlos A. Gonzalez Guilbot, Maria Rosa Del 

Arenal de Gonzalez (collectively, the “Appellants”) filed a motion for extension of time 

to file petition for review under Rule 53.7(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

(the “Motion for Extension”). Appellants filed the Motion for Extension as to both Cause 

No. 14-07-00047-CV and Cause No. 14-10-01149-CV. The clerk of this court received 

notice from the clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas that the Motion for Extension had 

been filed as to Cause No. 14-10-01149-CV. The clerk of this court received no such 

notice as to Cause No. 14-07-00047-CV. Because the clerk of this court received no such 

notice as to Cause No. 14-07-00047-CV, on September 5, 2012, this court issued its 

mandate in Cause No. 14-07-00047-CV. 

On September 19, 2012, Appellants filed a motion to recall mandate, in which 

they point out that they had filed the Motion for Extension. In the motion to recall, 

Appellants also assert that they timely filed the Motion for Extension. In light of the 

filing of the Motion for Extension and in light of subsequent filings in the Supreme Court 

of Texas regarding the appeal in Cause No. 14-07-00047-CV, this court grants 

Appellants’ motion to recall mandate and orders that the mandate in Cause No. 14-07-

00047-CV be RECALLED. In taking this action, this court is not expressing agreement 

with Appellants’ assertion that they timely filed the Motion for Extension. 

PER CURIAM
Elena ISPHORDING v. LEGACY HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a Nolan's Restaurant

2160849

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2018

Affirmed.
J. Stanford LIFSEY, Esq., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Wayne A. MC CLAIN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0251

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Daniel Rosa ANDINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.**

AFFIRMED.
|   | 1. | NetSol      Technologies, Ltd.; Lahore,Pakistan. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | NetSol      Connect (Pvt) Limited; Karachi,Pakistan. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | NetSol      Technologies Europe., Ltd; Horsham,England. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | NetSol      Abraxas, Inc.; Adelaide, Australia. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | NetSol-Innovation      (Pvt) Limited; Lahore, Pakistan. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | NetSol      Technologies North America; Emeryville, California. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 7. | NetSol      Technologies UK, Limited,England.                   |

----
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of BankFinancial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Morgan Gasior, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ F. MORGAN GASIOR                                          |  |  |  | Dated: November 1, 2007
|F. Morgan Gasior                                              |  |  |  |                        
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President |  |  |  |                        

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6910

FELISBERTO R. DOCANTO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

MICHAEL A. R. SEALE; TREVOR DORSETT; PATRICK

PILGRIM; JOSEPH BURNS; DAVID BOOTH,

Plaintiffs,

versus

PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL; LEWIS BARLOW, John Doe

#1, Superintendent; W. MARSHALL, John Doe #2,

Captain; LIEUTENANT HUNTER, John Doe #3; LIEUTENANT SCOTT, John Doe #4; LIEUTENANT FORE,

John Doe #5,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-417-AM)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felisberto R. Docanto, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Felisberto R. Docanto seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice a pro se class action alleging

violations of constitutional rights based upon conditions at the

Piedmont Regional Jail. The district court dismissed the complaint

without prejudice on the grounds that the six pro se plaintiffs

were unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.

1975). The court further determined that it would not be proper

for the plaintiffs to proceed as co-plaintiffs because it appeared

that some of them had exhausted their administrative remedies,

while others had not.

Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

The appellant may refile an individual claim. We note that the applicable statute of limitations will continue to run. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VAGAS DAVIS, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00309-HEH-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vagas Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vagas Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for 

reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record

included on appeal and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Davis, No. 3:10-cr00309-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 20 (Friday, January 31, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02132]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2025-0001]

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Weeks of February 3, 10, 17, 24, March 3, and March 10, 
2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

PLACE: The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Anne Silk, NRC 
Disability Program Specialist, at 301-287-0745, by videophone at 240-
428-3217, or by email at [email protected]. Determinations on requests 
for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

STATUS: Public.
    Members of the public may request to receive the information in 
these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at 
[email protected] or [email protected].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of February 3, 2025

Thursday, February 6, 2025

9:00 a.m. Briefing on ADVANCE Act Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: 
Mike King: 301-415-6637; Luis Betancourt: 301-415-6146)

    Additional Information: The meeting will be held in the 
Commissioners' Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 
The public is invited to attend the Commission's meeting in person or 
watch live via webcast at the Web address--https://video.nrc.gov/.

Week of February 10, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 10, 2025.

Week of February 17, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 17, 2025.

Week of February 24, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 24, 2025.

Week of March 3, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 3, 2025.

Week of March 10, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 10, 2025.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For more information or to verify 
the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via 
email at [email protected].
    The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

     Dated: January 29, 2025.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Markley,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-02132 Filed 1-29-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50172

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NORBERTO LOPEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-234

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Norberto Lopez-Lopez (Lopez)

has moved for leave to withdraw from this direct appeal and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Lopez has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief

and has filed a response but raises no potentially non-frivolous

issue therein. Our independent review of the brief and the record
2

discloses no non-frivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Emery Deshon HANDY Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3353

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gloria MALLOL, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, on Behalf OF the HOLDERS OF the ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3 ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-3, Gloria E. Bencosme and Basilio A. Bencosme, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2463

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.