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

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00165-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SETTLEMENT

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

WILLIAM GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANS UNION LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00165-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 19

The parties, filed a Notice of Settlement (Dkt. No. 19), are ordered to appear before the 

Honorable Edward J. Davila on April 27, 2017, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom No. 4, 5th Floor, 

United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113, to show cause 

why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On or 

before April 20, 2017, the parties shall file a joint statement in response to the Order to Show 

Cause setting forth the status of settlement efforts as well as the amount of additional time 

necessary to finalize and file a dismissal.

The Order to Show Cause shall be automatically vacated and the parties relieved of the 

obligation to file a joint statement if a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a) is filed on or before April 20, 2017.

All other pretrial deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED and any pending motions are 

TERMINATED.

Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss 

the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00165-EJD Document 20 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
Frankie DERIZZO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

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

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Franklin v. State*, 258 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2018) ; *State v. Michel*, 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018).
Donta A. LONG, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3881

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 4(a)


                               STATE OF DELAWARE
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


o        The Undersigned, desiring to form a limited partnership pursuant to the
         Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, 6 Delaware Code,
         Chapter 17, do hereby certify as follows:

o        First: The name of the limited partnership is
                       Atlas America Public #12-2003 Limited Partnership

o        Second: The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware
         is
                       110 S. POPLAR STREET, SUITE 101  in the city of
                       WILMINGTON, DE  19801

         The name of the Registered Agent at such address is ANDREW M. LUBIN

o        Third: The name and mailing address of each general partner is as
         follows:

                       ATLAS RESOURCES, INC.
                       MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER
                       311 ROUSER ROAD, P. O. BOX 611
                       MOON TOWNSHIP, PA  15108

o        In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
         Limited Partnership of Atlas America Public #12-2003 Limited
         Partnership as of July 10, 2003.

                                    Partnership Name
                                    By:  ATLAS RESOURCES, INC.
                                         MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER


                                    /s/    Frank P. Carolas
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Frank P. Carolas, Executive Vice President

      State of Delaware
      Secretary of State
   Division of Corporations
Delivered 12:30 PM 07/15/2003
  FILED 12:30 PM 07/15/2003
SRV 030464391 - 3681735 FILE
Darrell WARD, DOC #265206, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 12, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Chief Judge.

Darrell Ward appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary of a structure, a third-degree felony. *See* § 810.02(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment, with a ten-year mandatory minimum as a violent career criminal. *See* § 775.084(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court also entered a restitution order nearly a year before trial. We have jurisdiction. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence without further comment; we remand for the trial court to strike the restitution order.

During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Ward moved to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that the restitution order should be stricken because the order preceded his conviction and the prosecutor did not request restitution at the sentencing hearing. The State explained that the parties discussed restitution at a pretrial hearing but that the trial court did not order restitution. It is also apparent the trial court did not impose restitution at the sentencing hearing.

The trial court correctly granted the motion and ordered the clerk to strike the restitution order. *Cf.* *Hollins v. State*, 881 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("Restitution is a mandated part of sentencing and must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter."); *cf. also* *Socorro v. State*, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("Prior to ordering restitution, a trial court must determine that: (1) the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered was caused directly or indirectly by *defendant's offense*; and (2) there is a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the *crime proved*." (emphasis added)). The record reflects no subsequent action by the clerk. The State concedes that remand is appropriate.

We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence. We remand for the trial court to enter an order directing the clerk to strike the August 30, 2016, restitution order.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
                       FRIEDE GOLDMAN INTERNATIONAL INC.


First Tier
----------

World Rig Leasing Company
Friede Goldman Offshore, Inc.
Friede Goldman Canada Inc.
Friede & Goldman, Ltd.
HAM Marine, Inc.
Friede Goldman France SAS

Second Tier under Friede Goldman Canada Inc.
-------------------------------------------

Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited

Second Tier under Friede Goldman France SAS
-------------------------------------------

Archere, S.A.

Third Tier under Achere, S.A.
-----------------------------

France Marine S.A.

Fourth Tier under France Marine S.A.
------------------------------------


Brissoneau & Lotz Marine S.A.
Brissoneau & Lotz Marine Offshore, S.A.
BOPP S.A.
Kerdranvant S.A.R.L.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-30677) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-33527) of our report dated February 12, 2000 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1999, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 28, 2000
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                Buildings and Facilities

Buildings and Facilities

                        


                        White Oak Campus Information Home
          About FDA
          Jobs and Training at FDA
          Buildings and Facilities
          Status of White Oak Campus FacilitiesBuildings and Facilities Status of White Oak Campus Facilities
  
  					
	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintAll FDA Facilities on the White Oak campus are Open with Maximum Telework Flexibilities to all current telework eligible employees, pursuant to direction from agency heads.

The following message applies to January 20, 2024.

Status: Open – With Maximum Telework Flexibilities to all current telework eligible employees.

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      01/20/2024Buildings and Facilities

          
                        


                        White Oak Campus Information
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VINCERA, INC. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I am the Chief Executive Officer of Vincera, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company).  I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-QSB). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, David R. Malmstedt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (1) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ David R. Malmstedt Name: David R. Malmstedt Title: Chief Executive Officer, (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)    1
Jibrail HUTCHINSON v. STATE

CR-16-0907

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
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 and Land  Development,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending March 31, 2006 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.


Dated:  May 18, 2006                    By: /s/ Lu Pingji
                                            -----------------------
                                            Lu Pingji
                                            Chief Executive Officer




                                       18
Kabil KRAJA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1408

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 02, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Paul O. Hynard, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Xu E. Hua, T.C. Lee Distributors, Inc., and American Truck Insurance Exchange Company, Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Paul O. Hynard, appellant pro se.White, Fleischner &amp; Fino, LLP (Patricia Carbone, Esq.), for respondents Hua and T.C. Lee Distributors, Inc.American Truck Insurance Exchange Company, respondent pro se (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered June 2, 2016. The judgment, upon a decision of that court dated February 24, 2016, after a nonjury trial as against defendants Xu E. Hua and T.C. Lee Distributors, Inc., and, in effect, after an inquest as against defendant American Truck Insurance Exchange Company, awarded plaintiff the sum of $3,754.12.</p><p>ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (<i>see </i>CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the sum of $15,099.21 as damages he had allegedly incurred when the 1986 Oldsmobile Firenza he owned and was driving was rear-ended by a truck driven by defendant Xu E. Hua, which was owned by defendant T.C. Lee Distributors, Inc. and insured by defendant American Truck Insurance Exchange Company (American Truck). Defendant American Truck failed to appear or answer. At a nonjury trial, which was also, in <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>effect, an inquest as against defendant American Truck, the attorney for defendants Xu E. Hua and T.C. Lee Distributors, Inc. conceded liability. In a written decision dated February 24, 2016, which named all three defendants in its caption, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the sum of $3,754.12. We deem plaintiff's appeal on the ground of inadequacy from the decision to be from the subsequently entered judgment (<i>see</i> CPLR 5520 [c]), which also named all three defendants in its caption.</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court's award of damages was not inadequate.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J. WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 06, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Kenwand Jurmaine THOMPSON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Alain DEGRAEVE, Appellant, v. Elizabeth WILLIS, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1831

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Shebeyonne Latrice GARNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3925

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Case 3:17-cr-00003-WHO Document 10 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 1
Partnerships in action:

Expanding broadband access

Whitney Duffey Jones, Department of Commerce

1

Bonus 

presentation!
Strategic alliance across the 

Department of Commerce

• Department of Commerce, Commerce Implementation and 

Coordination Office

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

• U.S. Census Bureau

2
Expand broadband access

• Program Objective: Expand equitable broadband access to connect every American to reliable, 

high speed, affordable broadband.

• Census Data Sources: ACS data on broadband adoption, demographic data across different 

geographic areas, educational and labor force data

• Notional data products:

• Use places and/or clusters of census blocks to identify areas that are completely outside of coverage 

areas or are outside of 25/3 coverage areas. This could help identify areas where extending 

infrastructure would service a larger number of households.

• Use household level modeling to identify households that do not have access to broadband and/or 

have not adopted broadband. Identify categories based on analysis of variables like income, age, and 

race.

• Develop a broadband subsidy index that would identify areas where 25/3 broadband access is available 

but is not being adopted, likely due to the cost of the service relative to income levels.

• Develop a set of broadband need indexes that differentiate between broadband availability vs. 

adoption.

3
NTIA Partnership: 

Digital Equity Act Population Viewer

4

• Phase 1 (May 2022): 

• Released Digital Equity Act 

Population Viewer

• Phase 2 (November 2022): 

• Update Digital Equity Act 

Population Viewer to include 

Covered Population for counties 

and census tracts, as well as 

Puerto Rico

• Future work: 

• Revisions/Enhancements to the 

Digital Equity Act Population Viewer

• Incorporation of more granular 

geographic area data that may 

include small area modeling 

techniques, alternative broadband 

measures, and demographic and 

socioeconomic measures, etc.
Next steps from Chief Data 

Officer’s Perspective

Oliver Wise, Chief Data Officer, Department of Commerce

5
Next steps

• Develop standing Metrics Working Group to arrive at a methodology 

for calculating department-wide metrics

• Identify data standards to facilitate data linkage

• Develop common frameworks for providing an equity lens in program 

monitoring and evaluation

6
Discussion

7
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 4, 2015

d0901

Order 

Clerk

September 4, 2015

151732(69)

In re NORFLEET/WINBUSH-BEY/NEWTON- BEY/NORFLEET-BEY, Minors. SC: 151732

COA: 323110

Macomb CC Family Division:

2013-000397-NA; 

2013-000398-NA;

2013-000399-NA;

2013-000400-NA;

2013-000401-NA;

2013-000402-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 2, 2015 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-21016

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALD PATRICK HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-94-CR-231-2

- - - - - - - - - -

September 23, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Harris appeals the refusal of the district court to

consider new issues of fact arising for the first time on remand

for resentencing. He argues that the district court should have

considered these new issues and that the failure to do so should

result in a reversal and vacation of his sentence.

There is no de novo resentencing following remand in all

cases in which resentencing has been ordered. United States v.

Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. 
No. 97-21016

-2-

filed, (July 20, 1998)(No. 98-5372). The district court did not

err in holding that the only issues to be considered on

resentencing were those directed to it by this court. The other

errors argued by the appellant were not properly before the

sentencing court because they did not fall within the limits of

the remand order.

Appellant’s argument concerning a change in the law

regarding downward departures by sentencing courts is unavailing. 

United States v. Koon, 518 U.S. 81 (1996). Koon authorizes a

sentencing court to make a departure from the Sentencing

Guidelines only if the facts are appropriate, and the opinion

sets out considerations for different circumstances. Id. at 92-

96. The district court acknowledged its ability to consider an

imperfect duress defense but held that it was improper to do so. 

As result, this decision cannot be reviewed by this court. See

United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th Cir. 1998)(en

banc); United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477-78 (5th Cir.

1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.