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

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed]

Order for Dismissal with Prejudice

16-CV-07341 LHK

JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County Counsel (S.B. #271253)

JASON M. BUSSEY, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #227185)

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor

San Jose, California 95110-1770

Telephone: (408) 299-5900

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

AND BARBARA TRAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELISA SALAZAR-APODACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 16-CV-07341 LHK

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///
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

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed]

Order for Dismissal with Prejudice

16-CV-07341 LHK

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to this action, through their designated counsel, 

that the above-captioned action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own fees and costs. The stipulation and order 

and the dismissal with prejudice shall not constitute or be deemed an admission of any kind by either 

party regarding the merits of this action.

I hereby attest that I have on file the holograph signature indicated by a “conformed” 

signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.

Dated: January 17, 2018

Date: January 17, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES R. WILLIAMS

County Counsel

By: /S/

Jason M. Bussey

Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

AND BARBARA TRAW

By: /S/

Charles A. Bonner

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ELISA SALAZAR-APODACA

ORDER:

THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, THAT:

1. The entire action is dismissed with prejudice as to all parties pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii)

2. The Court shall direct the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the entire action with 

prejudice.

3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated:

Honorable Lucy H. Koh

United States District Court Judge

1698058

1/17/2018

The Clerk shall close the 

 file.
EXHIBIT 23.2 TO FORM 10-KSB

                       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 for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1999, which
report is included in this Annual Report Form 10-KSB.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 28, 2001
Guillermo A. ALONSO and Adriana C. Alonso, Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D18-3347

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.17



  List of Contents of Exhibits and Schedules to the Landmark American Insurance
                   Company Administrative Services Agreement



        Exhibits                                 Description
        --------                                 -----------

Exhibit A                                Administrative Services Intellectual
                                         Property License Agreement

Exhibit B                                RSA Reinsurance Security Guidelines

Exhibit C                                Form of Report Required Pursuant to
                                         Section 7.1



       Schedules                                 Description
       ---------                                 -----------

Schedule 4.5(a)                          Levels of Treaty Reinsurance
Exhibit 10(j)


 


SECRETARIAL
CERTIFICATION

OF THE

COMPENSATION/NOMINATING/CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

COMMITTEE

TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION

May 16, 2003


 


*****************************************************************


 


Following discussion, and upon motion
duly made, seconded and carried, the following resolutions were adopted:


 


WHEREAS,
the Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan (“SERP”), in addition to other
benefits, provides supplemental benefits related to the TCF Pension Plan as it
existed prior to its amendment to the TCF Cash Balance Pension Plan on
September 1, 1990 (the “Prior Pension Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS,
there are only four remaining employees in the prior Pension Plan SERP whose
benefits are “frozen” at a fixed amount and this Committee wishes to terminate
the Prior Pension Plan SERP and pay out its benefit in order to save ongoing
administrative expenses;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY


 


RESOLVED,
that Section IV(a) of the SERP is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following effective as of May 30, 2003:


 


(a)          The
supplemental pension benefit provided under this section relative to the TCF
Pension Plan was terminated effective as of May 30, 2003, and all
then-remaining accrued benefits under the supplemental pension benefit were
paid out to participants in a lump sum no later than June 30, 2003.


 


FURTHER
RESOLVED, that management is authorized and directed to proceed to implement
these Resolutions, including to execute documents on behalf of the Company,
such as management deems necessary or appropriate.


 


I, Gregory J. Pulles, Secretary of TCF Financial Corporation, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of excerpt of minutes of
the meeting of the Compensation/Nominating/ Corporate Governance Committee of
the TCF Financial Corporation Board of Directors held on May 16, 2003 and that
the minutes have not been modified or rescinded as of the date hereof.


 


	
   

  	
  /s/ Gregory J.
  Pulles

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Gregory J.
  Pulles

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (Corporate Seal)

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Dated: July 2,
  2003
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |

May      10,      2007
# Exhibit 32.1

# 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 Annual Report
of Champps Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
June 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2003
(the Report), I, William H. Baumhauer, Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: /s/ William H.
BaumhauerWilliam
H. BaumhauerChairman of the Board, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

Date: September 24, 2003
# C_2016296EN.01002402.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/24

---

Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-303/16)

(2016/C 296/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision by the European Commission of 4 April 2016 (C(2016) 2083(final)); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision by the European Commission of 4 April 2016 (C(2016) 2083(final)); and

| — | order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) on orphan medicinal products and because the conditions in Article 8(3) of that regulation for granting a derogation from these orphan market exclusivity rights have not been fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) on orphan medicinal products and because the conditions in Article 8(3) of that regulation for granting a derogation from these orphan market exclusivity rights have not been fulfilled.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 has been prepared and adopted in violation of the ‘Duty of Care’ also known as the ‘Principle of Diligence’, specifically because of a failure to take into account all relevant scientific data about the medicinal products concerned, and because of a failure to consult Novartis as an interested party in the scientific assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 has been prepared and adopted in violation of the ‘Duty of Care’ also known as the ‘Principle of Diligence’, specifically because of a failure to take into account all relevant scientific data about the medicinal products concerned, and because of a failure to consult Novartis as an interested party in the scientific assessment.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)

1

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14008

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-21778-JAL

SOLOMON DAVID ROBERTS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

LINDA S. KATZ, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 28, 2016)

Case: 15-14008 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Solomon David Roberts, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s sua sponte dismissal -- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) --

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney 

General of the State of Florida, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General. No 

reversible error has been shown; we affirm. 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under section 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, viewing the allegations in the 

complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003). We 

construe liberally pro se pleadings. Id. at 1160. 

Under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the district court is authorized to dismiss a 

case filed by a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted.” (emphasis added). 

Briefly stated, Roberts complains that Katz misrepresented or withheld 

material facts during a post-conviction proceeding. Roberts contends that Katz’s 

conduct (1) rendered his guilty plea involuntary and (2) caused him to serve a 

Case: 15-14008 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

sentence in excess of the maximum possible sentence for his offense of conviction. 

As relief, Roberts seeks monetary damages. 

“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court 

must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply 

the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 

2372 (1994). If so, “the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can 

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. 

Although Roberts’s section 1983 complaint seeks only monetary damages, a 

judgment in Roberts’s favor would imply necessarily that his underlying 

conviction and sentence were invalid. Because Roberts has failed to demonstrate 

that his conviction and sentence have already been invalidated, the district court 

dismissed properly Roberts’s claim as not cognizable under section 1983. See id. 

We reject Roberts’s contention that the district court’s dismissal constituted 

a violation of Roberts’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. See Garvie v. 

City of Fort Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir. 2004) (no Seventh 

Amendment violation when the court grants summary judgment based on a 

question of law). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-14008 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Page: 3 of 3
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

ANDRE JUSTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIMLEE AMARIAH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00041-SI 

ORDER REVOKING PAUPER STATUS 

ON APPEAL

This action was dismissed because it was filed in the wrong venue. The court chose 

dismissal rather than transfer because plaintiff has filed more than seventy actions throughout the 

country but chooses not to comply with venue requirements of which he is aware. The court now 

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and revokes in forma pauperis status for plaintiff 

on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer of 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:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 19, 2006



/s/ Matthew T. Gibbs IIMatthew T. Gibbs II Chief Financial Officer and Director (Principal Financial Officer)


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.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 26 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.26
                                      Agreed to January 10, 2022        

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the 
Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such 
catafalque may be used in connection with services to be conducted 
there for the Honorable Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator from the State 
of Nevada.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 46 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 46

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice 
 and the Department of Homeland Security relating to ``Procedures for 
  Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of 
        Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2022

 Mr. Johnson (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boozman, 
Mr. Braun, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. 
Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, 
    Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis, Mr. 
   Marshall, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of 
  Florida, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice 
 and the Department of Homeland Security relating to ``Procedures for 
  Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of 
        Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
    That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of 
Justice and the Department of Homeland Security relating to 
``Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, 
Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers'' 
(87 Fed. Reg. 18078 (March 29, 2022)), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Lorna BLAND v. Myra Bland TATANO et al.

1160228

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Report of L-3 CommunicationsHoldings, Inc. (‘‘L-3 Holdings’’) and L-3Communications Corporation (‘‘L-3Communications’’; together with L-3 Holdings referred toas ‘‘L-3’’) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember  31,  2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), Michael T. Strianese,President and Chief Executive Officer and Ralph G. D’Ambrosio,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, in each case, of L-3Holdings and L-3 Communications, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                            |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of L-3. |

Date: February28,2007

|                                     |  |  |                                           |
|-------------------------------------|--|--|-------------------------------------------|
| /s/Michael T.Strianese              |  |  | /s/Ralph G. D’Ambrosio              |
| Michael T.Strianese                 |  |  | Ralph G.D’Ambrosio                  |
| President and Chief ExecutiveOffice |  |  | Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
|                                     |

----
Curtis Jerome COOK, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0759

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.