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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.

17-CV-00101-JCS-67

James A. Lassart - 40913

JLassart@mpbf.com

Nicholas Larson - 275870

NLarson@mpbf.com

MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY

88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108-5530

Telephone: (415) 788-1900

Facsimile: (415) 393-8087

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Arizona corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a

Delaware corporation, SIDE.CR LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company, UNITED

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Case No.: 17-cv-00101-JCS-67

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER
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

- 2 -

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.

17-CV-00101-JCS-67

WHEREAS, Plaintiff NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation,

(“Nautilus”) filed its Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Reimbursement, Equitable Indemnity and

Equitable Subrogation, on January 9, 2017;

WHEREAS, Cross-Complainant UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation, (“United”) filed its Cross Claim for Declaratory Relief against Cross-Defendants

Side.cr, LLC and Sidecar Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Sidecar”) on April 20, 2017;

WHEREAS, United and Sidecar settled this matter on or about April 3, 2018 and each party

agreed to cover their own fees and costs;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between United and Sidecar through their

designated counsel that the above-captioned action should be dismissed with prejudice as to all parties

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

GORDON-CREED, KELLEY, HOLL & SUGERMAN,

LLP

By: /s/ JEREMY SUGERMAN

Jeremy Sugerman

Attorneys for Cross-Defendants

Side.cr, LLC, and Sidecar Technologies, Inc.

Dated: April 10, 2018

MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY

By: /s/ JAMES A. LASSART

James A. Lassart

Nicholas C. Larson

Attorneys for Defendant

United Specialty Insurance Company
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

- 3 -

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.

17-CV-00101-JCS-67

The Court having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, orders

as follows:

1. The action is dismissed with prejudice as against cross-defendants pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2).

2. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of the April 3, 2018,

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________ _____________________________

Honorable Jon S. Tigar

United States Magistrate 'LVWULFWJudge

Northern District of California

April 10, 2018
Michael A. SELF, II, Appellant, v. EXCEPTIONAL TITLE III, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

Tarya A. Tribble, of Tribble Law Center, P.A., Riverview, for Appellant.

H. William Vazquez, of The Law Office of H. William Vazquez, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
# Jf**ourtlj Court** **of iUntonio,** **September 30,** **2014 No.** **04-14-00239-CV Andrew** **Mata and** **Oscar Mata,** **Appellants v.** **State Farm** **Mutual Insurance** **Company, Appellees** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **2014-CI-03572**

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** 

### argument**will not** **significantly aid** **it in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **November 5,** **2014, to** **the following** **panel: Chief** **Justice Stone,** **Justice Martinez,** **and Justice** **Chapa. All** **parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **48. Either** **party may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** 

### presented**in the** **appeal. See** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **39.8. Such** **motion should** **be filed** **within ten** **(10) days** **from the** **date of** **this order.** **It is** **so ORDERED** **on September** **30, 2014.** 

## Catherine**Stone, Chief** **Justice**

# IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **September 30,** **2014.**
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 

16, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00195-CV

SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

V.

BENJAMIN M. LAWSKY, SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL 

SERVICES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS LIQUIDATOR OF 

NASSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-36621A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 23, 2016. On July 28, 

2016, appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.1. The motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Paul O. BowerPaul O. Bower, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode), the undersigned officer of Vornado Realty Trust, sole general partner ofVornado Realty L.P. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that: 

 

The Annual Report onForm 10-K for year ended December 31, 2010**(the “Report”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

|              |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| February 25, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Michael D. Fascitelli |
|              |   | Name:  | Michael D. Fascitelli |
|              |   | Title: | President and Chief Executive  Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, sole general partner of Vornado Realty L.P. |
|              |   |   |   |   |

 

 

 

----
CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, Anthony Jackson, the, Chief Financial Officer of Empirical Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(i)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the period ended September 30, 2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
/s/ Anthony JacksonName:
Anthony JacksonTitle:
Chief Financial OfficerDate:
March 5, 2014




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant, v. George A. ORDONEZ and Amaryllis Ordonez, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3156

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 24, 2019.

Michael K. Winston and Dean A. Morande of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law Firm, Tampa, (withdrew after briefing); Angela Leiner of The Law Office of Angela L. Leiner, P.A., for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. We hold that the executive branch has already determined that there is no additional tax due under the unique facts of this case. *See* § 201.08(5), (6), Fla. Stat. (2010) ; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-4.052(12)(a) (2010) ("A renewal that does not add obligor(s) and merely changes the interest rate, the maturity date, or the payment terms is not subject to tax, provided tax was paid on the original document and the original document is attached to the renewal."). Accordingly, it was reversible error for the trial court to enter judgment against Well Fargo on this basis.

Reversed and remanded.

KELLY, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Shaun SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TT OF PINE RIDGE, INC., d/b/a Naples Nissan, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0199

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Antonio MCCANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SAIDRICK JACKSON, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-264-M (BH)

v. §

§

DALLAS COUNTY JUVENILE §

PROBATION DEPARTMENT, § ECF

and DOUGLAS VANCE, §

§

Defendants. § Pretrial Management

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

SO ORDERED this 30 day of July, 2007. th

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ERIC JASON WANAMAKER )

)

V. ) 3-06-CV-255-N

)

JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL, )

ET AL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SIGNED August 31, 2006.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00255-N Document 13 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 96
# Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis

# Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Over the past 4 years, the Biden Administration's destructive policies inflicted an historic inflation crisis on the American people. The Biden Administration not only exploded Government spending, artificially and unsustainably stimulating demand, but it simultaneously made necessary goods and services scarce through a crushing regulatory burden and radical policies designed to weaken American production. Hardworking families today are overwhelmed by the cost of fuel, food, housing, automobiles, medical care, utilities, and insurance.

In particular, the assault on plentiful and reliable American energy through unnecessary and illegal regulatory demands has driven up the cost of transportation and manufacturing. In addition, the unlawful regulatory mandate on companies to effectively eliminate many or most gas-powered vehicles has resulted in artificial price increases on those popular vehicles to subsidize electric vehicles disfavored by consumers. 

Moreover, many Americans are unable to purchase homes due to historically high prices, in part due to regulatory requirements that alone account for 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new home according to recent analysis.

In sum, unprecedented regulatory oppression from the Biden Administration is estimated to have imposed almost $50,000 in costs on the average American household, whereas my first-term agenda reduced regulatory costs by almost $11,000 per household. It is critical to restore purchasing power to the American family and improve our quality of life. 

I hereby order the heads of all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker. This shall include pursuing appropriate actions to: lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply; eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices that increase healthcare costs; eliminate counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home appliances; create employment opportunities for American workers, including drawing discouraged workers 

into the labor force; and eliminate harmful, coercive “climate” policies that increase the costs of food and fuel. Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy shall report to me and every 30 days thereafter, on the status of the implementation of this memorandum.

[FR Doc. 2025-01904

Billing code 3395-F4-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LELA M. McNAIR, §

 §

Plaintiff §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1889-B (BH)

 §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED this 6 day of March , 2008. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D.E.L. v. STATE

CR-17-0537

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Carlos Lamar JACKSON v. Tanisha Robinson JACKSON

2170248

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2018

Dismissed.
# m8500.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.7.2017 C(2017) 5127 final To the notifying parties Subject : Case M. 8500 – CENTRAL / SIGNA PRIME /JVCO Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 20 June 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertakings Harng Central Department Store Ltd (‘Central’, Thailand) and Berlin, Tauentzienstraße 21-24 Beteiligung A Sàrl , a subsidiary of SIGNA Prime Selection AG (‘SIGNA’, Austria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Berlin, Passauer Straße 1-3 Immobilien GmbH & Co. KG and its general partner Berlin, Passauer Straße 1-3 Management GmbH both of Germany ( together ‘ JVCo ’), by way of purchase of shares. 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Central: family owned holding company which is active through subsidiaries in merchandising, real estate, retailing, hospitality and restaurants activities primarily in Southeast Asia including Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. - for SIGNA: engaged in real estate activities, i.e. purchase, rent, lease and management of land and buildings as well as project development. The associated group under the control of SIGNA Retail GmbH is active in retail trade and operates, in particular, the Karstadt department store chain. - for JVCo : owner of a real estate property plot in Berlin which is currently occupied by a multi storey car park. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( a ) and 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission (Signed)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 205 , 29 . 06 . 2017 , p. 59 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 3, 2022

No. 04-21-00149-CV

Nasser NAKISSA,

Appellant

v.

Sarah E. MENCHACA,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19593

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 28, 2022, we struck appellant’s brief for failing to comply with requirements 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We ordered appellant 

to file an amended brief that fully complied with the applicable rules. See id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. 

On March 2, 2022, appellant timely filed an amended brief, but it does not fully comply 

with the applicable rules. For example, the brief does not identify appellee’s counsel, and there 

are no citations to the appellate record or to applicable legal authority. See id. R. 38.1(a), (g), (i). 

The brief also does not contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made.” See id.

R. 38.1(i). Finally, while appellant’s brief states that its appendix contains “[r]eceipts for the 

certificate of service to the Appellee’s Attorney,” there is no certificate of service or other 

indication that appellant served the brief on appellee. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e). Due to these defects, 

the amended brief does not include Rule-compliant versions of the following:

 list of parties and counsel;

 statement of facts;

 argument; or

 certificate of service.

See id. R. 9.5, 38.1. 

We recognize appellant is acting pro se on appeal. But “a pro se litigant is held to the 

same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of 

FILE COPY
procedure.” Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. 

denied). 

Nevertheless, despite the amended brief’s defects, we are not ordering appellant to file a 

second amended brief. However, the submission panel may determine that appellant has waived 

one or more issues due to inadequate briefing if the noted deficiencies are not corrected prior to 

submission. See Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (briefing waiver). 

Appellees’ brief is due on April 1, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY