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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARLENE CAMPBELL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

992 PERALTA LLC, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00189-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 7 

Plaintiff filed the above-captioned case in forma pauperis appearing to raise claims under 

the Endangered Species Act and the American Disabilities Act. The Court initially dismissed 

plaintiff’s complaint as incomprehensible allowing plaintiff leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 4.) 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2017. (Dkt. No. 5.) On March 9, 2017, 

having reviewed such amended complaint, the Court found that plaintiff had failed to raise any 

cognizable claims and dismissed her complaint without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court 

further ordered the Clerk to close the file. (Id.) 

On March 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to “arbitration; fraud; order to show cause.” 

(Dkt. No. 7.) The Court finds that this motion is without merit and DENIES the same given that the 

case has been closed and plaintiff offers no grounds upon which the case should be reopened. Any 

future motions submitted by plaintiff in this case number will not be received by the Clerk of the 

Court and will be returned to plaintiff. Plaintiff may file a new action if she believes she has a 

proper claim. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2017 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2003 Amendment to Auto-By-Tel Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 EXHIBIT 4.8 
  

AUTO-BY-TEL CORPORATION 
 1996
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
  

  

2003 Amendment 
  

  
 WHEREAS, Autobytel Inc. (the
“Corporation” maintains the Auto-By-Tel Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), and the Board of Directors has duly approved a resolution to amend – 
  

	 	(i)	 	Section 13(a) of the Plan to increase by 300,000 the number of shares of the Corporation’s common stock (“Common Stock”) that participants in the Plan may purchase;
and 


	 	(ii)	 	Section 23 to provide that the right of Plan participants to purchase these 300,000 shares shall expire ten years after the date hereof (or, if earlier, the date of the Plan’s
termination or the date required to conform the Plan with the requirements of Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code). 

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Plan be and it is hereby amended as follows, effective immediately but subject to approval of this
amendment by the Corporation’s stockholders within 12 months of the date hereof. 
  

	 	1.	 	Section 13(a) of the Plan is amended by replacing “400,000” with “700,000”. 

  

	 	2.	 	Section 23 of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof: 

  

	 	    	 	“With respect to the 300,000 shares of Common Stock that the Plan reserves for purchase pursuant to the 2003 Amendment of the Plan, the term of the Plan shall expire ten years
after the earlier of Board or shareholder approval of said 2003 Amendment (unless sooner terminated under Section 20 hereof).” 

  

	 	3.	 	Each and every other provision of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect, subject only to the change set forth above. 

  
 WHEREFORE, the undersigned, being a duly authorized officer of the
Corporation, hereby adopts and approves this 2003 Amendment to the Plan, effective February 25, 2003. 
  

	AUTOBYTEL INC.
		
	 By
	 	 /s/    ARIEL AMIR


	 	 	A duly authorized Officer
---

Exhibit 32.a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Dynamic Gold Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, each of Tim Coupland, the Chief Executive Officer, and Gord Steblin, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, 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 the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief: (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 / Tim CouplandTim Coupland, Principal Executive Officer 
February 9, 2010

/ s / Gord Steblin
Gord Steblin, Principal Financial Officer 
February 9, 2010

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Neenah Foundry Company

     Advanced Cast Products, Inc. - wholly owned.
         Belcher Corporation.
         Peerless Corporation.
     Cast Alloys, Inc. - wholly owned.
         International Golf, S.A. de, C.V.
     Dalton Corporation - wholly owned.
         Dalton Corporation, Warsaw Manufacturing Facility.
         Dalton Corporation, Ashland Manufacturing Facility.
         Dalton Corporation, Kendallville Manufacturing Facility.
         Dalton Corporation, Stryker Manufacturing Facility.
     Deeter Foundry, Inc. - wholly owned.
     Gregg Industries, Inc. - wholly owned
     Mercer Forge Corporation - wholly owned.
         A&M Specialties, Inc.
      Neenah Transport, Inc. - wholly owned.




                                       72
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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Date: June 15, 2017 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 8 

Judge: The Hon. Lucy Koh 

Rahul R. Hari, SBN 313528 

rhari@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90013 

Telephone: +1 213 896-6000 

Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600 

Attorney for Amicus Curiae ACT | The App Association 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 91 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 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 

1 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Rahul R. Hari of the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP 

hereby appears as counsel for amicus curiae ACT | The App Association, identified 

below: 

Rahul R. Hari 

rhari@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles CA 90013 

Telephone: (213) 896-6045 

Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 

Dated: May 12, 2016 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Rahul R. Hari 

By: /s/ Rahul R. Hari

Rahul R. Hari 

Attorney for Amicus Curiae ACT | The App Association 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 91 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Lawrence Stephenson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Armitage Mining
     Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
9th day of August, 2005.


/s/ Lawrence Stephenson
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

CR 17-0019 BLF 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

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BONIFASCIO LIMON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CR 17-0019 BLF

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF 

FORFEITURE

On July 20, 2018, the court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture forfeiting the following 

property:

1. a Smith & Wesson .357 caliber revolver bearing serial number AJK8427;

2. any ammunition loaded in that firearm, including six rounds of Sig Sauer brand .357 caliber 

ammunition bearing head stamp “Sig 357 MAG;”

3. forty-five additional rounds of Sig Sauer brand .357 caliber ammunition bearing head stamp 

“Sig 357 MAG;” and
[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

CR 17-0019 BLF 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

30

4. five rounds of Remington brand .223 caliber “FC” rifle rounds with orange tips,

pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d)(1).

The United States represents that it has complied with the publication notice requirements of the 

Preliminary Order and that no petitions have been filed.

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-described property shall be 

forfeited to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(d)(1). All right,

title, and interest in said property is vested in the United States of America. The appropriate federal 

agency shall dispose of the forfeited property according to law.

Dated: September 26, 2018

_____________________________________

HONORABLE BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01709]

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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules will hold an in-
person meeting in hybrid format with remote attendance options on April 
2, 2025 in Atlanta, GA. The meeting is open to the public for 
observation but not participation. Please see the Supplementary 
Information section in this notice for instructions on observing the 
meeting.

DATES: April 2, 2025 (meeting date) and March 26, 2025 (registration 
deadline for in-person observation).

ADDRESSES: An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 
days in advance of the meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/agenda-books.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Cox, Rules Committee Staff, 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal 
Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 
20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To observe the meeting in person, 
individuals must contact the office listed above by 5 p.m. (eastern 
time) on March 26, 2025. After this deadline, only remote observation 
is permitted. Remote registration is available until the meeting date, 
provided it is completed before the projected end time.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: January 21, 2025.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2025-01709 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
```
EX PARTE Jeffery M. HALL

CR-17-0190

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Kamauri JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Phyllis TEBAULT, Patricia Delavallade, Almeria Williams, Anthony Jackson, Eileen Jones, Zakiya Jackson, and Doris Monconduit, individually and as Heirs of Thelma Jackson v. EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL, Dr. Arzu Hatipoglugreen, Dr. Rene Deboisblanc and Dr. Christian Scheuermann

NO. 2019-CC-0641

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
Omahr GREGORY v. STATE

CR-17-0287

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 4:17-mj-70038-MAG Document 8 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 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

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, OR IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE, A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 104

On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff Kevin Quillinan filed a motion for a new trial, or in the 

alternative, a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order dismissing the first amended 

complaint with prejudice. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 104.) On June 6, 2018, Defendants filed an 

opposition. (Defs.’ Opp’n, Dkt. No. 105.)

Since there was no trial in this case, Plaintiff cannot obtain relief under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59. Moreover, the Federal Rules do not recognize motions for reconsideration, 

but do allow a litigant to file a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Specifically, Rule 60 provides that a party may be relieved from a final 

judgment or order based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). 

Here, Plaintiff argues that he 

has recently realized after gaining further information and 

performing more research, that plaintiff’s claims may have been 

more properly pleaded under 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), where monies 

gained by named RICO defendants by illegal marijuana growing and 

distributing activities, was invested in real property by the named 

RICO defendants, resulting in damages to plaintiff by being 

displaced from plaintiff’s business location, the subject warehouse.

(Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.) The Court disagrees. First, there is no newly discovered evidence; only a 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

newly discovered theory of liability. Second, in the order granting the motion to dismiss with 

prejudice, the undersigned found that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring RICO claims, because his 

injury—the eviction from his storage space—was not caused by any predicate act of racketeering,

and that there was no proximate cause, because any property owner could have elected to 

terminate Plaintiff’s lease. (5/10/18 Order, Dkt. No. 102 at 5-8.) The alleged source of the funds 

used to purchase the warehouse does not change the outcome, and, even if it did, evictions are not 

actionable under RICO. Id. at 8.

According, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Thus, at this juncture, Plaintiff’s only recourse 

is to file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Helios and Matheson North America Inc., on a consolidated
basis.
  Date:      March 15, 2011
    /s/ Divya RamachandranName:
    Divya RamachandranTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01887]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Electric Vehicle Working Group

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open virtual meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On January 8, 2025, the Department of Energy published a 
notice of open meeting announcing a virtual meeting on January 30, 
2025, of the Electric Vehicle Working Group (EVWG). This notice 
announces the cancellation of this virtual meeting.

DATES: The virtual meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 30, 2025, 
announced in the Wednesday, January 8, 2025, issue of the Federal 
Register (FR Doc. 2025-00219, 90 FR 1474), is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Rachael Nealer, Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20585; email: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 586-
3916.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 24, 
2025, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, Secretarial Office 
of Boards & Councils, pursuant to delegated authority from the Acting 
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date 
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2025.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2025-01887 Filed 1-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

y1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

138932(163)

MARILYN FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138932 COA: 275580 Oakland CC: 2004-062223-CZ BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, DONALD DREYFUSS, ELISA DREYFUSS, MARY D. BRIGHT TRUST, NANCY R. VLASIC REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, JOHN RAKOLTA, JR., TERRY RAKOLTA, and THOMAS VARBEDIAN, Defendants, and

ALAN KIRILUK, MARI LYNNE KIRILUK, ROGER B. SMITH, BARBARA SMITH, GREGG WILLIAMS, CI NDI WILLIAMS, and CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 23, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , C.J., and C AVANAGH , J., would grant the moti on for reconsideration.
Jalen MCADORY v. STATE

CR-16-0596

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018 Reh. denied February 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.