alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 20, 2018

VIA ECF (CHAMBER’S COPY VIA HAND-DELIVERY TO CLERK’S OFFICE)

The Honorable James Donato

United States District Judge

San Francisco Courthouse

450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 11, 19th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Federal Trade Commission v. D-Link Systems, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00039 JD

Dear Judge Donato:

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission and Defendant D-Link Systems jointly submit this

request that each party be allowed to retain its separate exhibit numbers at trial. Paragraph 24 of

the Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials before Judge Donato ordinarily requires that all exhibits

be marked as “‘Trial Exhibit No. __’” and not as Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s Exhibit. This provision

appears directed at avoiding juror confusion and prejudice. 

The parties have used the “PX” (for Plaintiff’s Exhibits) and “DX” (for Defendant’s

Exhibits) designations throughout this litigation, including in every deposition and wish to

continue to do so for ease of trial and trial preparation. The parties will ensure that no competing

versions of the same exhibit are included as trial exhibits.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kevin H. Moriarty

Kevin H. Moriarty

Attorney for Plaintiff

Federal Trade Commission

/s/ John J. Vecchione 

John J. Vecchione of Cause of Action

Institute [admitted pro hac vice]

Attorneys for Defendant D-Link Systems,

Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 229 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable James Donato

November 20, 2018

Page 2

ATTESTATION

I attest that all signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in

this filing’s content and have authorized the filing.

/s/John J. Vecchione 

John J. Vecchione

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 229 Filed 11/20/18 Page 2 of 2
Edward KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1377

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 15, 2019

Edward King, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
### Cannot redisplay /tmp/file0.761910179668245.pdf, it has already been shown once.
##### 



Exhibit 10.14
 Helios & Matheson
Ganga Griha
6-D Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600034
India
  
 Re:
    
    Authorization to Use Helios & Matheson Name,
related trademarks, service marks and service names
(collectively, the Helios & Matheson Intellectual
Property Rights)
    (i)
    
    the Company duly and properly effectuates a change of the Companys
corporate name which change is not consented to or approved by Helios &
Matheson.(ii)
    
    the Company consummates a business combination or merger, pursuant to
which the Company is not the surviving corporation, or the Company consummates
a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent or
approval of Helios & Matheson.




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.14
 
 (iii)
    
    the Company files or becomes a debtor subject to a bankruptcy proceeding
which proceeding or filing was not commenced by Helios or Matheson or consented
to by Helios & Matheson.
   Very truly yours,
Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd.By:
    /s/ V. RamachandiranV. RamachandiranChairman
Exhibit 31.2

                                 MediaBay, Inc.

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, John F. Levy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MediaBay, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

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

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
      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 annual
            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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c.    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
      our 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.



Date: March 31, 2005

                                             By: /s/ John F. Levy
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                     John F. Levy
                                                     Vice Chairman and Chief
                                                     Financial Officer
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 08-1788

________________

United States of America,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

Carlos Urquhart,

Defendant – Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: April 21, 2008

 Filed: May 7, 2008

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Urquhart appeals from the district court's1

 denial of his motion for a

reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment

706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.), which reduced

certain base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) depending on the quantity of

cocaine base (crack) involved. 
-2-

Appellant is ineligible for any relief under the new retroactive amendments

because his original sentence of 120 months was imposed pursuant to the mandatory

minimum provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Jones, No. 08-1692 (8th

Cir. Apr. 25, 2008) (per curiam). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court

and deny the motion for appointment of counsel.

______________________________
Scott Thomas HICKS v. Anastasia Raquel TRAVIS

2170460

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 30, 2018

Dismissed.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 390 

Expressing appreciation for the State of Qatar’s efforts to assist the United 

States during Operation Allies Refuge. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing appreciation for the State of Qatar’s efforts to 

assist the United States during Operation Allies Refuge. 

Whereas thousands of United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, vulnerable Afghans, and their families 

sought refuge following the Afghan Taliban’s takeover of 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; 

Whereas the State of Qatar played a critical role in assisting 

the United States in evacuating thousands of people from 

the rule of the Afghan Taliban regime; 

Whereas Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar served as a central 

transportation hub for many evacuees desperately seeking 

to exit Afghanistan; and 

Whereas Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin stated, 

‘‘Qatar’s support for Operation Allies Refuge was indisVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:53 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR390.IS SR390

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 390 IS 

pensable to the safe transit of Americans and U.S. personnel, allies, partners and Afghans at special risk.’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) thanks the State of Qatar for their pivotal 

3 role and support of Operation Allies Refuge; and 

4 (2) appreciates the State of Qatar’s support to 

5 temporarily house thousands of evacuees until they 

6 are cleared for follow-on movement. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
##### 



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


Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual
Report of on Form 10-K of ChoicePoint Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies that:
Based on my 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| | /s/ DEREK V. SMITH                  
| |                                     
| | Derek V. Smith                      
| | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

March 5, 2004

24
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-13-2009

In Re: Stephen Mitchell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2905

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Stephen Mitchell " (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 820.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/820
1

HLD-114 (July 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 09-2905

________________

IN RE: STEPHEN MITCHELL,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:08-cv-00787; M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:08-cv-01588; and

M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:09-cv-00789)

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 31, 2009

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 (filed: August 13, 2009) 

_______________

 OPINION

________________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Mitchell is a Pennsylvania inmate who has filed three separate suits

in federal district court alleging violations of his civil rights related to various prison

practices and occurrences in the course of his incarceration. All three suits are still

pending. Mitchell has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651, apparently seeking to obtain faster adjudication of his suits by the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” which is generally used only to “confine

an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to

exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976) (citations omitted). Only “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial

‘usurpation of power’” warrant the use of this extraordinary remedy. Id. (citation

omitted). Relief is not warranted here.

Mitchell’s three actions were filed in April 2008, August 2008, and April

2009, respectively. Review of the District Court’s docket for each case reveals no delay

that would constitute an exceptional circumstance. Accordingly, we will deny the

petition. We also deny Mitchell’s motion for appointment of counsel and his “Motion for

Order of Protection.”

 

 2
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(aw)    
    


 
  Magellan Health Services
  Key Employee Retention Program    
    


Program Objective:  


        Retain the top percentage of people needed for successful completion of restructuring, resulting in emergence from bankruptcy. 



Eligibility:  


        An eligible employee (typically Director and Above) is defined as an employee meeting some or all of the following characteristics: 



	•
	Possess
skills, abilities or competencies that are crucial for restructuring success and not found elsewhere in Magellan or difficult to find outside of Magellan



	•
	Has
positive and influential business relationships with customers that are critical for us to sustain during the restructure process.



	•
	Is
in a role that is required for the duration of organizational transition, and would involve substantial investment in time or dollars to refill. 






Retention Bonus Guidelines:  


        Minimum bonus should be 10% of base. Maximum bonus should not exceed Incentive Plan funding level for each respective position. 


Monetary Distribution:  



        Retention bonuses will be paid out in two payments. One third of the total retention bonus will be paid 90 days after filing. The remaining two thirds of
the total retention bonus will be paid 45 days post emergence from bankruptcy. 


Program Implementation:  


        A Retention Program Agreement will be put in place for each individual included in the Retention Bonus Program. This document will include a description of
services/project support needed, detailed forfeiture penalties an employee may face if he/she does not complete the services or performance standards, and a confidentiality statement. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(aw)


Magellan Health Services Key Employee Retention Program
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
  (1)
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 13, 2009
    /s/  Paul F. BolingName:
    Paul F. BolingVice President andChief Financial Officer
Felicia W. JOHNSON v. Dr. Cass Klim CAX

2170438

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2018

Dismissed.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART LENOVO AND MOTOROLA’S MOTION TO SEAL

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART LENOVO AND 

MOTOROLA’S MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1166

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Lenovo and Motorola’s 

motion to seal as follows. By Tuesday, January 8, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., Lenovo and Motorola shall 

refile redacted public versions of the below exhibits consistent with the Court’s sealing rulings. 

Document Page/Line Ruling

CX2018 Entire Document GRANTED. 

CX2060 Portions on pp. 008-011 GRANTED. 

CX2060 Portions on pp. 014-016 GRANTED. 

CX2060 Portions on pp. 019-023 GRANTED. 

CX2065 Portions on p. 001 GRANTED. 

CX2123 Portions on p. 003 GRANTED. 

CX2123 Portions on p. 004 GRANTED. 

CX2123 Portions on pp. 007-009 GRANTED. 

CX2124 Portions on pp. 003-005 GRANTED. 

CX2124 Portions on pp. 006-010 GRANTED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1179 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART LENOVO AND MOTOROLA’S MOTION TO SEAL

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

Document Page/Line Ruling

CX2125 Portions on p. 001 GRANTED. 

CX2168 Portions on p. 002 DENIED. 

CX2168 Portions on pp. 004-005 DENIED. 

CX2168 Portions on pp. 007-009 GRANTED.

CX2168 Portions on p. 013-014 DENIED as to p. 013, but GRANTED 

as to p. 014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1179 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 2
ZOO
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

      AMENDMENT
TO 2007 EMPLOYEE, DIRECTOR AND CONSULTANT STOCK PLAN

      


      This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the
Zoo Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) 2007 Employee, Director and Consultant
Stock Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby effective as of January 14,
2009.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Plan.

      


      WHEREAS, the Company enacted
the Plan in accordance with the purposes set forth therein; and

      


      WHEREAS, Section 31 of the
Plan reserves to the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) the power in its
discretion to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time subject to
applicable law and the rights of the Participants on the date of such action;
and

      


      WHEREAS, the Board deems it
appropriate to amend the Plan to increase the aggregate number of Shares which
may be issued from time to time pursuant to the Plan from one million
(1,000,000) shares to four million (4,000,000) shares; and

      


      WHEREAS, the Board deems it
appropriate to amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of Shares with
respect to which Stock Rights may be granted to any Participant in any fiscal
year from two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) to seven hundred fifty thousand
(750,000).

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
hereby amended as set forth below:

      


      1.           Section
3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “one million (1,000,000)” from
the second line thereof and inserting “four million (4,000,000)” in its
place.

      


      2.           Section
4(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “250,000” from the third line
thereof and inserting “750,000” in its place.

      


      3.           The
Plan shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically amended
herein.