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

JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS UPDATE

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

Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) 

lwlee@diversitylaw.com 

DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 

515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

(213) 488-6555 

(213) 488-6554 facsimile 

William L. Marder, Esq. (State Bar No. 170131) 

Polaris Law Group LLP 

501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 

Hollister, CA 95023 

Tel: (831) 531-4214 

Fax: (831) 634-0333 

Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

(Additional counsel on next page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODERICK MAGADIA, individually and 

on behalf of all those similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; WAL-MART 

STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00062-LHK 

JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS UPDATE

Date: October 25, 2018 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

 

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 164 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 3
2 

JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS UPDATE

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

Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) 

dhyun@hyunlegal.com 

HYUN LEGAL, APC 

515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

(213) 488-6555 

(213) 488-6554 facsimile 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

Aaron T. Winn (State Bar No. 229763) 

atwinn@duanemorris.com 

Jennifer A. Kearns (State Bar No. 125588) 

jkearns@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

750 B Street, Suite 2900 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 744-2200 

(619) 744-2222 (Winn direct) 

(619) 744-2242 (Kearns direct) 

(619) 744- 2201 facsimile 

Attorneys for Defendants Wal-Mart Associates, 

Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 164 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS UPDATE

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

Plaintiff Roderick Magadia and Defendants Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc. jointly submit this Joint Settlement Status Update: 

On September 28, 2018, the Parties renewed their settlement discussions with mediator 

Robert Kaplan. Since then, the Parties have continued to negotiate with Mr. Kaplan’s help. The 

discussions have been productive and are ongoing, but the Parties have not yet resolved the 

dispute. The Parties will immediately notify the Court if they reach an agreement. If the case 

does not settle, the Parties are prepared to proceed to trial. 

DATED: October 12, 2018 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 

By: /s/ Larry W. Lee 

 Larry W. Lee 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

DATED: October 12, 2018 Duane Morris LLP 

By: /s/ Aaron Winn 

Aaron Winn 

Attorneys for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

DM1\8813759.1

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 164 Filed 10/12/18 Page 3 of 3
Opinion filed April 2, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-15-00039-CR

____________

EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 6880

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

Eddie Dale Underwood, pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s 

denial of a motion requesting an out-of-time appeal of a 1992 nunc pro tunc order. 

The trial court denied Appellant’s motion on February 5, 2015, and Appellant filed 

a notice of appeal. Upon docketing the appeal, we notified Appellant by letter

dated March 5, 2015, that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction in this

matter and that it did not appear that the trial court’s February 2015 order was a 
2

final, appealable order. We requested that Appellant file a response showing 

grounds to continue the appeal. 

Appellant filed a response but has not shown grounds upon which this 

appeal may be continued. Appellant asserts that this court has jurisdiction because 

his notice of appeal complies with TEX. R. APP. P. 25. We disagree. Mere 

compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure does not bestow jurisdiction on 

this court. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We hold 

that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the trial court’s order

denying Appellant’s motion for an out-of-time appeal because that order is not a 

final, appealable order. See Underwood v. State, No. 11-08-00128-CR, 2008 WL 

2058548 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 15, 2008, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (dismissing a previous appeal in which Appellant 

attempted to attack the 1992 judgment nunc pro tunc by way of a 2008 motion to 

vacate). Furthermore, an intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant 

an out-of-time appeal or to consider a motion for an out-of-time appeal; the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals is the only court with jurisdiction in final postconviction felony proceedings. Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–24, 525 n.8; Ater v. 

Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

April 2, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 236 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 236

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                              v. Wornick.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2021

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                              v. Wornick.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Wornick, Cr. No. 20-106, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony and, if necessary, 
        documents from Bailey McCue, an employee of the office of former Senator 
        Cory Gardner;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or 
        documents relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Bailey McCue, an employee of the office of former 
Senator Cory Gardner, and any other employee of the former Senator's 
office from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, are authorized to 
testify and produce documents in the case of United States v. Wornick, 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Gardner and any employees of his former office in connection 
with the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Samuel J. CHESTNUT, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 28, 2019

Samuel J. Chestnut, pro se, Appellant.

Eric Salvatore Giunta, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 27
                              VORNADO REALTY L.P.
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         143,201
<SECURITIES>                                   106,503
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,408
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,921,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,479,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,048,804
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,700,000
<PREFERRED>                                    478,585
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,084,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,479,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               696,958
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                255,677
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            255,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   177,427
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94


</TABLE>
D.R. v. MORGAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170011

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2018

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Adam Taylor CORBIN

CR-16-0152

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 68 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 68

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and 
                    Exercising Shareholder Rights''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 2022

 Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Burr, and Mr. 
  Kennedy) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and 
                    Exercising Shareholder Rights''.

    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 Labor relating to ``Prudence and 
Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder 
Rights'' (87 Fed. Reg. 73822 (December 1, 2022)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



     In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bridge
Capital  Holdings  for the  quarter  ended March 31,  2006,  I, Daniel P. Myers,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Bridge Capital Holdings, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:


(1)  such 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 such Report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Bridge
     Capital Holdings.





Date: May 4, 2006      /s/ DANIEL P. MYERS
                           _____________________________________
                           Daniel P. Myers
                           President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018063EN.01000501.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 November 2017 — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-631/17)

(2018/C 063/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The legislation of which Member State is designated by Regulation No 883/2004 (1) in a situation in which the person concerned (a) resides in Latvia, (b) has Latvian nationality, (c) is employed by an employer established in the Netherlands, (d) works as a seafarer, (e) works on board a vessel at sea flying the flag of the Bahamas, and (f) performs those activities outside the territory of the European Union?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 78

 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit certain 
 resolutions to be privileged only if they are based on conduct which 
   was the subject of an investigation and report by the appropriate 
  committee of jurisdiction or if they are offered by direction of a 
                      party caucus or conference.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2025

 Ms. Williams of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit certain 
 resolutions to be privileged only if they are based on conduct which 
   was the subject of an investigation and report by the appropriate 
  committee of jurisdiction or if they are offered by direction of a 
                      party caucus or conference.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PRIVILEGED STATUS OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS.

    Rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``3.(a) A resolution described in paragraph (b) shall not raise a 
question of privilege for purposes of this rule unless--
            ``(1) the committee to whom the resolution is referred has 
        conducted an investigation and filed a report recommending that 
        the House impose the sanction provided by the resolution; or
            ``(2) the resolution is offered by direction of a party 
        caucus or conference.
    ``(b) A resolution described in this paragraph is--
            ``(1) a resolution impeaching an officer of the Government; 
        or
            ``(2) a resolution to censure, reprimand, or expel a 
        Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or to cause a 
        vacancy to occur in the office of the Speaker or in the 
        position of a chair or ranking minority member of a 
        committee.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Priviledged
      and Confidential**





April
      2,
      2007


**AMENDMENT
      2 TO THE**


**EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 1, 2003**





By
      and
      between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
      Elena Pochapski (“Employee”) made effective as of April 1, 2007.





**WHEREAS
      the Corporation and the Employee** previously signed the Amendment to the Employment Agreement, which stated the
      temporary annual salary of the Employee;





**AND
      WHEREAS the Corporation and the Employee** wish
      to
      determine the amount of compensation for the period starting April 1,
      2007,





**NOW
      THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH** ,
      that
      the Company and the Employee agree as follows:





Point
      2.1
      of the Amendment to the Employment agreement to be revised and annual salary
      of
      the Employee returned to the regular amount as per point 5.1.1 of the Employment
      Agreement dated August 1, 2003, which is stated as US$75,000.





Monthly
      salary will be paid in Canadian dollars from the bank account of Siberian Energy
      Group Inc.(Canada). For convenience of calculation of tax withholdings the
      exchange rate will be fixed at 1.15CDN/USD until December 31, 2007, at which
      date Canadian dollar amount will be recalculated to reflect the actual average
      exchange rate for 2007, but will not be below 1.00 CDN/USD.





All
      other
      provisions of the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2003 and Amendment to
      the
      Employment Agreement of August 15, 2005 remain without change.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the
      day
      and year first above written.








EMPLOYEE
            COMPANY









/s/
              Elena Pochapski
            /s/
              David ZaikinElena
                Pochapski,
            David
                Zaikin,Address:
                152 Mullen Drive,
            Chairman
                and CEOThornhill,
                ON, L4J 2V3
            Siberian
                Energy Group Inc.
Ronald G. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-3078

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 274 

Designating July 24, 2021, as ‘‘National Day of the American Cowboy’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2021 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

INHOFE, and Mr. MARSHALL) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 24, 2021, as ‘‘National Day of the 

American Cowboy’’. 

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as ‘‘cowboys’’, helped to establish the American West; 

Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, 

compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism; 

Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, 

sound family values, and good common sense; 

Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, 

geographic boundaries, and political affiliations; 

Whereas the cowboy, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the environment, is an excellent steward 

of the land and its creatures; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 274 IS 

Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations; 

Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the 

economy through the work of many thousands of ranchers across the United States who contribute to the economic well-being of every State; 

Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working 

ranch rodeo events annually, making rodeo one of the 

most-watched sports in the United States; 

Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that promote and encompass the livelihood of 

cowboys span every generation and transcend race and 

gender; 

Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and 

music and occupies a central place in the public imagination; 

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and 

Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and 

cowgirls to their communities should be recognized and 

encouraged: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 24, 2021, as ‘‘National Day 

3 of the American Cowboy’’; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 

6 activities. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Chunsi William VINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5094

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

Jason B. Blank of Haber Blank, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachel Kamoutsas, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C:\Users\crblc1\Desktop\blank order.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIE WILEY, JR.,

Defendant.

 /

No. CR 17-05 CRB

ORDER SETTING HEARING

The Court hereby DIRECTS the parties in this case to appear in court on Wednesday,

May 3, 2017 at 1:30 P.M. The Chief of the Appellate Division is also directed to attend. 

Defendant’s presence may be waived. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2017

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE