alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0036

_________________ WHITEFISH 57 COMMERCIAL, LLC and RIMROCK COMPANIES, LLC,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Defendant and Appell ee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Robert B. Allison , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2023

06/28/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0036
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 American Reprographics Company (the
      "Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report),
      I,
      Sathiyamurthy Chandramohan, as Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that (1) the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained
      in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.


Date:
                August 14, 2006
            
            /s/ Sathiyamurthy
              ChandramohanChairman
                of the Board of Directors and
              Chief
                Executive Officer




In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of American Reprographics Company (the
        "Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report),
        I,
        Mark W. Legg, as 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, to the best of my knowledge, that (1) the Report
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the
        Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
                  August 14, 2006
              
              /s/ Mark
                W.
                LeggChief
                  Financial Officer and Secretary
Christopher Mack CHARLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0397

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 2019

Christopher Mack Charles, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's show cause order of February 5, 2019, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Lewis, Wetherell, and Rowe, JJ., concur.
# m8604.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.10.2017 C(2017) 6820 final To the notifying part y : Subject : Case M. 8604 – XELLA INTERNATIONAL / URSA Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 11 September 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Lone Star Fund X (U.S.), L.P. and Lone Star Fund X (Bermuda) , L.P., through their fully owned subsidiary Xella International S.A .( Luxembourg), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole Ursa Insulation S.A. and Ursa International GmbH (Spain), by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Lone Star: a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit and other financial assets; - for Xella International: a diversified building materials group, which includes mineral insulation boards; - for Ursa : an insulation materials provider. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 6 of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 310 , 19 . 9 . 2017 , p. 11 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Wornick Company (the “Company”)for the fiscal quarter ended October 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry L. Rose,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  November 16, 2004

 

 
| By:  | /s/ Larry L. Rose                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------|
|      | Larry L. Rose                         |
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT D 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 43-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 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

Adam Wolek (pro hac vice)

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Tel: 312.836.4063 

Fax: 312.966.8598

awolek@taftlaw.com

DAVID A. MAKMAN (SBN 178195)

david@makmanlaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN 

655 Mariner’s Island Blvd, Suite 306 

San Mateo, CA 94404 

Telephone: (650) 242-1560

Facsimile: (408) 716-3052

Attorneys Appearing in a Limited Capacity for 

Counter-Defendants Boon Global Limited, F8 

Vietnam Company Limited, California Fitness & 

Yoga Centers, California Management Group, 

and Randy Dobson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation, by 

Mabel Mak, and MABEL MAK, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, and PRAVEEN 

NARRA KUMAR, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07387

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING RANDY DOBSON’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

INDYZEN’S PETITION TO 

COMPEL ARBITRATION 

PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(2), 

12(b)(3), AND (12)(b)(6)

Date: February __, 2018

Time: N/A

Dept.: N/A

Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, and PRAVEEN 

NARRA KUMAR, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation, BOON 

GLOBAL LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation, F8 

VIETNAM COMPANY LIMITED, a Vietnam company, 

CALIFORNIA FITNESS & YOGA CENTERS, an entity of 

unknown form, CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT GROUP, 

an entity of unknown form, and RANDY DOBSON, an 

individual,

Counter-Defendants.

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 43-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 3
[Proposed] Order Granting - 2 - No. 16-cv-07387

Mr. Dobson’s Mot. to Dismiss

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on Counter-Plaintiff Indyzen, Inc.’s (“Indyzen”) 

Petition to Compel Arbitration (the “Petition”) as to Randy Dobson (“Mr. Dobson”), due notice having 

been given, and the Court being fully advised, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Mr. Dobson’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition is hereby GRANTED. This Court does 

not have personal jurisdiction and venue over Mr. Dobson as required by Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). Furthermore, to the extent that this Court has jurisdiction, the Petition 

should also be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to properly 

state a claim. Indyzen’s claims against Mr. Dobson fall outside the scope of the arbitration clause agreed 

to by Indyzen and Parkridge Limited.

2. Mr. Dobson is dismissed from this matter with prejudice.

Dated: _____________________ ______________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 43-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 3
1

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE 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 SAMSUNG’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1360

Before the Court is Samsung’s administrative motion to seal portions of trial testimony and 

trial exhibits to be introduced on January 22, 2019. ECF No. 1360. Applying the compelling 

reasons standard, the Court orders as follows:

Document Pages Ruling

QX0558A SFT-0014133 to SFT-0014134, selected 

numbers

GRANTED.

Deposition of 

Injung Lee

58:22, 58:25, 59:1, 59:4, 106:6, selected 

numbers

GRANTED as to the selected 

numbers, which are enclosed in red 

boxes. Samsung does not seek to 

seal the yellow highlighted portions 

of the testimony.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1367 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE 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 Pages Ruling

QX9331 SFT-07228696 and SFT-07228697, 

selected portions

GRANTED.

Samsung shall file a redacted version of the above documents consistent with this Court’s 

sealing rulings by Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 12:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1367 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 11 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 11

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
     clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
corporations, limited liability companies, and other corporate entities 
established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign 
                                 state.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2021

 Mr. Tester introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
     clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
corporations, limited liability companies, and other corporate entities 
established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign 
                                 state.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitution and other 
rights retained by the people shall be the rights of natural persons.
    ``Section 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms `people', 
`person', and `citizen' shall not include a corporation, a limited 
liability company, or any other corporate entity established by the 
laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.
    ``Section 3. A corporate entity described in section 2 shall be 
subject to such regulation as the people, through representatives in 
Congress and State representatives, may determine reasonable, 
consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this 
Constitution.
    ``Section 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit 
the rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by 
the people, which are unalienable.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER F. TAYLOR §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-2089-P

§

SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, §

ET AL. §

§

Defendants, §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is an unspecified civil action brought by Plaintiff Christopher F. Taylor, appearing pro

se and in forma pauperis, against the Social Security Office and its manager in Dallas, Texas. In

a rambling four-page complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has not yet received a check promised to

him by a Social Security employee. Plaintiff also accuses unnamed federal agents of conspiring to

kill him and drive him from his home. Process has been withheld pending a review of the complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff is no stranger to the civil justice system. In fact, he has filed 16 different federal

lawsuits, at least eight of which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. This

litigiousness prompted another judge in this district to enjoin plaintiff "from filing any lawsuit in any

court against any party unless he first seeks and obtains leave to do so from this court by filing a

motion for leave . . ." Taylor v. Maple Avenue Economic Development Corp., No. 3-02-CV-0791-D,

2002 WL 1758189 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2002) (Fitzwater, J.). No such leave has been sought

or obtained. Consequently, plaintiff should not be allowed to prosecute this action.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02089-P Document 5 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 15
RECOMMENDATION

The district clerk should be ordered to unfile the complaint received on October 24, 2005.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th

Cir. 1996).

DATED: October 26, 2005.

 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02089-P Document 5 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 16
Salvatore CIPOLLA, Appellant, v. Carl CHASE, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2675

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Verio Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-57059 and 333-59451) on Form S-8 of Verio Inc. of our reports dated
March 4, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Verio Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
period from inception (March 1, 1996) to December 31, 1996 and the years ended
December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related consolidated financial statement
schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K of Verio Inc.

                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP







Denver, Colorado
March 26, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 319 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 319

   Expressing support for the designation of July 2021 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2021

 Mr. Johnson submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for the designation of July 2021 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

Whereas sarcoma is a cancer of connective tissues, such as nerves, muscles, 
        joints, fat, bones, and blood vessels, that can arise anywhere in the 
        body;
Whereas, in the United States--

    (1) 16,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year;

    (2) more than 7,000 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and

    (3) 50,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma at any 1 time;

Whereas, each year, 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in adults and 20 percent of 
        cancers diagnosed in children are sarcoma;
Whereas more than 70 subtypes of sarcoma have been identified;
Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and
Whereas July 2021 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma 
        Awareness Month--

    (1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and

    (2) to encourage more individuals in the United States to get properly 
diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of July 2021 as 
``National Sarcoma Awareness Month''.
                                 <all>
```
Steven F. HUGHES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1866

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                   PREDECESSOR                       REORGANIZED
                                  ----------------------------------------------     -----------
                                                FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2000         2001         2002         2003          2004
                                  -------     --------     --------     --------     -----------
<S>                               <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Earnings to fixed charges
  calculation(1)
Income (loss) from continuing
  operations before income
  taxes.........................  $10,021     $(17,133)    $(11,870)    $(31,411)      $ 7,495
Fixed charges...................   44,898       44,380       44,515       48,407        34,392
                                  -------     --------     --------     --------       -------
                                  $54,919     $ 27,247     $ 32,645     $ 16,996       $41,887
                                  =======     ========     ========     ========       =======
Fixed charges:
Interest expense................  $43,949     $ 43,454     $ 43,466     $ 47,445       $33,392
Interest portion of rent
  expense.......................      949          926        1,049          962         1,000
                                  -------     --------     --------     --------       -------
                                  $44,898     $ 44,380     $ 44,515     $ 48,407       $34,392
                                  =======     ========     ========     ========       =======
Ratio of earning to fixed
  charges.......................     1.22          N/A(2)       N/A(2)       N/A(2)       1.22
</Table>

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

(1) For purposes of the computation, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges has
    been calculated by dividing (a) income from continuing operations before
    income taxes plus fixed charges by (b) fixed charges. Fixed charges are
    equal to interest expense plus the portion of the rent expense estimated to
    represent interest

(2) Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended
    September 30, 2001, 2002 and 2003 by $17.1 million, $11.9 million, and $31.4
    million, respectively.