alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Adam Wolek (pro hac vice) 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 

Tel: 312.836.4063 

Fax: 312.966.8598 

awolek@taftlaw.com 

DAVID A. MAKMAN (SBN 178195)

david@makmanlaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN 

655 Mariner’s Island Blvd, Suite 306 

San Mateo, CA 94404 

Telephone: (650) 242-1560 

Facsimile: (408) 716-3052 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Parkridge and Mabel Mak 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

On Behalf of PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong 

Kong corporation, by Mabel Mak, and MABEL 

MAK, an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, and 

PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR, an individual, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-07387-KAW 

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF FIVE 

NEWLY-NAMED PARTIES UNTIL 

AFTER THE HOLIDAYS 

Date: December 19, 2017 

Time: N/A 

Dept.: N/A 

Judge: Hon. Kandis A. Westmore 

I, ADAM WOLEK, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I have personal knowledge of all matter stated herein. 

2. I am counsel for Plaintiffs Parkridge et al. 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW Document 33-3 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 2
2

3. I requested an extension from Defendants’ counsel via telephone conference and 

through email because the electronically-generated briefing schedule would require counsel to work 

over Christmas, among other reasons. See Exhibit A. Defendants’ counsel agreed to a response 

date of at least January 4, 2018. See id. However, that due date would still interfere with the 

upcoming holidays and my and my associates’ travels for the holidays because a Response being 

due right after the holidays would effectively require counsel to work over the holidays. I 

accordingly requested additional time to avoid interfering with the holidays. See id. 

4. Furthermore, more than two weeks is needed to address all of the complex issues 

raised in Defendants’ motion, including, among other issues, whether each of the five newly-named 

entities were signatories to an agreement premised on an alter-ego theory (each would have to 

undergo a separate alter-ego analysis), whether the Court properly has jurisdiction over each of the 

five newly-named entities, and whether each of the five newly-named entities Consents to 

Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 

5. Moreover, given that the five newly-named parties are all located in Asia, the time 

difference and logistical communication issues further exacerbate delays in getting information, and 

sign off, to respond and address each of the relevant issues. 

6. Because this matter is stayed before this Court, it would not have an impact on the 

case schedule. 

7. For these, and other reasons, I respectfully request the Court enter an order extending 

the deadline from January 4, 2018, to respond to at least January 18, 2018. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 

true and correct. 

Executed on December 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Adam Wolek 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW Document 33-3 Filed 12/19/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/17   Page 1 of 2

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32   Filed 12/14/17   Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISIAH LAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1; 2:16-cv00252-RBS)

Submitted: March 15, 2018 Decided: March 28, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Paul E. Shelton, Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United 

States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isiah Land appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on whether the 

district court erred in ruling that Land’s prior Virginia convictions for malicious 

wounding and unlawful wounding were violent felonies under the force clause of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), and we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States 

v. Jenkins, No. 16-4121, __ F. App’x __, 2018 WL 1225728 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) 

(holding Virginia convictions for unlawful wounding and malicious wounding qualified 

as violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)). In light of Jenkins, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See 

United States v. Land, No. 2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2016). 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
Billy J. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2196

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC (the "Fund") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, 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 Fund.



Date: November 14, 2005   By:  /s/    Robert E. Swanson
                               Robert E. Swanson
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
                               (principal executive officer)


Date: November 14, 2005   By:  /s/    Kathleen P. McSherry
                               Kathleen P. McSherry
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               (principal financial and accounting officer)

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy M Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Renee Jacks BROWN v. Chris Young BROWN

2170369

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2018

Dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

y1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141501 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141501 

 COA: 298204 

St. Clair CC: 09-002517 FH 

HAMIN LORENZO DIXON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2010 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-13-00393-CR

________________ CHARLES CLAYTON BEARD, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-17137

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 12, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant Charles Clayton Beard on a conviction for burglary of a ha bitation. Beard filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2013. The tria l court entered a certificati on of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified th at this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certifi cation to the Court of Appeals.2 On August 27, 2013, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeal unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has been filed. Because the reco rd does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of a ppeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Ga ultney and Kreger, JJ.
Joseph RIVERA, DOC #T74883, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2149

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Fernando A. BOSCH, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-176

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

Fernando A. Bosch, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 LHC Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Keith G. Myers, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Peter J. Roman, Chief Financial Officer 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/ Keith G. MyersKeith G. MyersChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)November 4, 2009/s/ Peter J. RomanPeter J. RomanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)November 4, 2009
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

A.A.A., a Child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2601

[ November 14, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Gregory M. Keyser , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2018

- CJ

001459

- XXXX

- MB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, As sistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN , G ERBER and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Crystal FEDELE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's January 10, 2019, fee order.

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 9 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 9

   Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a 
                       Secretatry of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Thune submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a 
                       Secretatry of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the President of the United States be notified of 
the election of the Honorable Jackie Barber as Secretary of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 32 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 32

To clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas 
                            and California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2025

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Padilla) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas 
                            and California.

    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 ``Local Access to Courts Act'' or 
``LACA''.

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS.

    Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended, in 
the matter preceding paragraph (3), by inserting ``and College 
Station'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 3. ORGANIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS.

    Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``and El Centro'' after ``at San Diego''.
                                 <all>
```
William TYRRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**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 annual report of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endingDecember 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Adrian Adams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 15, 2010
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 1 Filed 01/13/05 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16
Statement

Jill Long Thompson, Board Chair

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

November 14, 2013

For America to be strong, the rural economy must be strong. In order to thrive, our rural 

communities must be able to provide good-paying jobs and access to capital, both of which 

require investments in the local economies. Just this month the USDA Economic Research 

Service released data showing a net loss in the rural population in 2012. It is important that this 

kind of contraction does not become a trend.

As we all know, the Farm Credit System exists for the purpose of providing “for an adequate 

and flexible flow of money into rural areas.” We also know this mission has contributed to the 

economic strength of our country. 

My husband and I live on our family farm in Indiana, and I have spent much of my professional 

career working to find ways to strengthen the rural economy. I support System institutions 

investing capital in sound projects that will simultaneously strengthen and diversify their asset 

base and grow the rural economy. Today we withdraw the community investments Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that was published in 2008. Additionally, we will conclude in 

approximately one year each pilot program the FCA Board approved after 2004. By taking these

actions, we are moving forward in clarifying the process by which institutions can invest capital 

under existing regulations in ways that benefit their communities, as well as their 

borrower/shareholders.

I believe the action we are taking today is prudent and will protect the safety and soundness of 

the System. Of equal importance, it will allow for capital management by the Farm Credit 

System institutions to include investments that benefit the rural economy.
# C_2017129EN.01000502.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 February 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes v Gabinete Português de Carta Verde

(Case C-71/17)

(2017/C 129/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Vicente Fernandes

Applicant:

Defendant: Gabinete Português de Carta Verde

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| A. | Does insurance taken out in Luxembourg produce legal effects in Portugal in the same way as if the corresponding policy had been issued in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Does insurance taken out in Luxembourg produce legal effects in Portugal in the same way as if the corresponding policy had been issued in Portugal?

| B. | Is the Gabinete Português de Carta Verde the compensation body referred to in Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) and, as the body responsible for compensating the injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 20(1) of the Directive, is it accountable in the same way as the Luxembourg insurance company? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Is the Gabinete Português de Carta Verde the compensation body referred to in Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) and, as the body responsible for compensating the injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 20(1) of the Directive, is it accountable in the same way as the Luxembourg insurance company?

1

| C. | In the present case, is it sufficient to sue the compensation body or is it also necessary to sue the insurance company? In the latter case, can the insurance company be sued at its headquarters in Luxembourg or must the action be brought against its representative in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

C.

In the present case, is it sufficient to sue the compensation body or is it also necessary to sue the insurance company? In the latter case, can the insurance company be sued at its headquarters in Luxembourg or must the action be brought against its representative in Portugal?

| D. | In the event that the insurance company does not have a representative in Portugal, who should be sued so that full compensation is paid, where there is an unlimited civil liability insurance policy? |
| --- | --- |

D.

In the event that the insurance company does not have a representative in Portugal, who should be sued so that full compensation is paid, where there is an unlimited civil liability insurance policy?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

SUBMIT STIPULATED PROPOSED 

REDACTIONS TO THE COURT'S 

ORDER OF MAY 22, 2020 ON OR 

BEFORE MAY 29, 2020

[Re: ECF 640]

On May 22, 2020, the Court issued and conditionally sealed its Order on Motion in Limine. 

See ECF 640. The Order references materials that were filed under seal in this case. To give the 

parties an opportunity to request redactions to the Order, the Court directs the parties to submit a 

stipulated request for redactions (or indicate that no redactions are requested) on or before May 29, 

2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 641 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 1