alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00163-YGR 

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

RANDY RENICK (CA Bar No. 179652) 

(Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com) 

CORNELIA DAI (CA Bar No. 207435) 

(Email: cdai@hadsellstormer.com) 

SPRINGSONG COOPER (CA Bar No. 307845) 

(Email: scooper@hadsellstormer.com) 

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP

128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 

Pasadena, California 91103-3645 

Telephone: (626) 585-9600 

Fax: (626) 577-7079 

JAY SMITH (California Bar No. 166105) 

(Email: Js@Gslaw.Org) 

JOSHUA F. YOUNG (California Bar No. 232995) 

(Email: Jyoung@Gslaw.Org) 

GILBERT & SACKMAN 

A LAW CORPORATION 

3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 

Los Angeles, California 90010 

Telephone: (323) 938-3000 

Fax: (323) 937-9139 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kyndl Buzas, Raudel 

Covarrubias, and Daniel Runions 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

KYNDL BUZAS, RAUDEL COVARRUBIAS, 

AND DANIEL RUNIONS, individually and on 

behalf of all similarly situated current and former 

employees, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY and DOES 1 through 

10, inclusive, 

 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00163-YGR 

CLASS ACTION 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND 

REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS 

Date: March 6, 2018 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Location: Oakland Courthouse 

 Courtroom 1 - 4th Floor 

The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00163-YGR 

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

ORDER 

Plaintiffs Kyndl Buzas, Raudel Covarrubias, and Daniel Runions’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

and Reimbursement of Costs (Dkt. No. 40) came on for hearing on March 6, 2018. 

Having considered all of the moving papers, the evidence submitted in support of the motion, 

and oral argument, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court rules as follows: 

 Class counsel is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,375,000, to be paid in accordance 

with the Settlement Agreement; 

 The Court finds that the application of the percentage of the fund method with a lodestar crosscheck to determine attorney’s fees in this case was proper and reasonable; 

 Class counsel is awarded costs in the amount of $32,760.29; 

 The Court finds that costs in the amount of $32,760.29 are reasonable and were necessarily 

incurred in this litigation by Class Counsel for the benefit of the class. 

This Order terminates Docket Number Docket Number 40. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:________________ ______________________________ 

 HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

 United States District Judge 

March 8, 2018
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-31000 Summary Calendar

ERIC SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus CARL CASTERLINE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-105

-------------------- January 28, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eric Simmons, federal prisoner # 36382-118, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In that petition, he challenged the United States Parole Commission’s (USPC) determination denying him reparole. He argues that it is inappropriate for the USPC to apply the federal regulations to determine a District of Columbia Code offender’s suitability for reparole and, further, that the application of the federal regulations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.No. 02-31000 -2- We review the district court’s determinations of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Venegas v. Henman , 126 F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997). The USPC exercises authority over District of Columbia Code offenders, having sole authority to grant them parole, and the federal regulations constitute the parole rules of the District of Columbia. 28 C.F.R. § 2.70(a). Consequently, the USPC’s decision to grant or deny reparole is made by reference to the reparole guidelines found in the Code of Federal Regulations, and all reparole hearings are to be conducted according to the procedures set forth therein. Id . at § 2.81(a), (d). Therefore, application of the federal regulations to determine Simmons’s suitability for reparole was correct. We reject Simmons’s argument that application of the federal regulations changed his reparole hearing date and thus increased the punishment attached to his crimes in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U.S. 499, 508-10 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
S. 958 

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 

An Act 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the allowable use criteria 

for new access points grants for community health centers. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maximizing Outcomes through 

Better Investments in Lifesaving Equipment for (MOBILE) Health 

Care Act’’. 

SEC. 2. NEW ACCESS POINTS GRANTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 330(e)(6)(A) of the Public Health 

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(e)(6)(A)) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(v) MOBILE UNITS.—An existing health center may 

be awarded funds under clause (i) to establish a new 

delivery site that is a mobile unit, regardless of 

whether the applicant additionally proposes to establish a permanent, full-time site. In the case of a health 

center that is not currently receiving funds under this 

section, such health center may be awarded funds 

under clause (i) to establish a new delivery site that 

is a mobile unit only if such health center uses a 

portion of such funds to also establish a permanent, 

full-time site.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on January 1, 2024. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
----

|  |  |
|--|--|

March 30, 2006

Our Ref: C554/AH/DW

China Expert Technology, Inc.Flat 2703-4, Great Eagle Centre23 Harbour RoadWANCHAIHONG KONG

Dir Sirs

We consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report underSection 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of China ExpertTechnology, Inc. (a Nevada corporation) (Registrant) for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2005 of our report dated February 22, 2005, except for therestatement discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements as towhich the date is March 10, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of China Expert Technology, Inc. therein. 

 

 

PKFCertified Public AccountantsHong Kong 

----
#### In re Alan D. SNOW and Gerardo Castillo.

No. 04-1168.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: April 12, 2004.

Patrick M. Dwyer, Principal Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Appellants.

John M. Whealan, Principal Attorney, Raymond T. Chen, of Counsel, Arlington, YA, for Appellee.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Order entered November ,2012 

## 904737

In The 

### .ffiftl) istritt of txas at 

## allas

No. 05-12-00926-CR HERNAN FRAIRE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09-23600-T



### ORDER The Court REINSTATES the appeal. On October 11, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record had not been filed. On October 29, 2012, we received the reporter’s record. Therefore, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and VACATE the October 11, 2012 order. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

DAVID L. JUSTICE
The SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2019

Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson & Storey, P.A., and Susan M. Seigle (Gainesville); Walter J. Harvey, School Board Attorney, and Jeff James, Assistant School Board Attorney, for appellant.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., and Michael T. Burke (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

*ON MOTION TO DISMISS*

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted. *See**Dep't of Children & Families v. Feliciano*, 259 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), *pet. pending*, SC18-2146 (Fla. Dec. 27, 2018); *Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Pozos*, 242 So.3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), *reh'g denied*, 242 So.3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (Rothenberg, C.J., dissenting), *pet. pending*, SC18-1118 (Fla. July 6, 2018). *But see*, *Fla. Highway Patrol v. Jackson*, 238 So.3d 430, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), *pet. pending*, SC18-468 (Fla. Mar. 23, 2018).

Dismissed.
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

DEMETRICK PENNIE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TWITTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00230-JCS 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint in this action. See Mot. (dkt. 

40). After Defendants filed their motion, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 

15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 1st Am. Compl. (dkt. 41). Because the 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint challenged by Defendants’ motion, the 

motion is DENIED AS MOOT.1 The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral 

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:17-cv-00230-JCS Document 42 Filed 06/12/17 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED LONDON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.

and BEECHE SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1912 BZ

ORDER VACATING STATUS

CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING

STATUS CONFERENCE

On February 15, 2006, this Court ordered that the instant

action be stayed pending the outcome of underlying state court

litigation. The February 15th order also set a status

conference in this matter to be held September 25, 2006. The

parties filed a Supplemental Case Management Statement dated

September 19, 2006 indicating that the underlying state

litigation remains active, and that the parties are pursuing

settlement. 

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 83 Filed 09/21/06 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

G:\bzall\-bzcases\st.paul reinsurance\ord.vacating.stat.conf.wpd 2

Because the underlying state court litigation remains

active, IT IS ORDERED that the September 25, 2006 status

conference is VACATED. A status conference is scheduled for

March 19, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor,

Federal Building, San Francisco, California 94102. One week

prior to the conference, the parties shall submit a joint

statement explaining the status of the state actions. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall immediately inform this

Court in the event that the state court litigation is settled

or otherwise terminated.

Dated: September 21, 2006

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 83 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
A.H., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1257

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EDWARDS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
LOGO

Exhibit 23.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-162888, 333-137273, 333-116528, 333-55838 and 333-35245) of Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the Company), relating to the Incentive Plan of the
Company, and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-159237) of the Company (collectively, the Registration Statements) of the information contained in our reserve report that is summarized as in our summary
letter dated March 9, 2011, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenue, as of December 31, 2010, of certain interests of the Company.

We hereby consent to all references to such reports, letters and/or to this firm in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates, and further
consent to our being named as an expert in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates.



LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd.LOGOWilliam M. KazmannSenior Partner


Houston, Texas

March 31, 2011

4600
Greenville Avenue, Suite 160  Dallas, Texas 75206  Phone (214) 363-3337  Fax
(214) 363-1608
##### 



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
  Form 10-K
  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
    or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company.   By:
    /s/  Steven
    L. Moore   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
 and Secretary
Exhibit 10.1

                        CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

                AMENDMENT TO 1999 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN

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

      Pursuant to: (i) resolutions of the Board of Directors of Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation (the "Company") effective as of: (a) December 14,
1999, authorizing an increase of 600,000 shares of common stock of the Company,
par value $0.01 per share (the "Common Stock"), subject to the Company's
Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"); (b) May 4, 2000, authorizing an
increase of 250,000 shares of Common Stock subject to the Plan; (c) August 11,
2000, authorizing an increase of 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock subject to the
Plan; (d) June 26, 2001, authorizing an increase of 3,000,000 shares of Common
Stock subject to the Plan; (e) September 26, 2001, authorizing an increase of
1,500,000 shares of Common Stock subject to the Plan; (f) January 31, 2002,
authorizing an increase of 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock subject to the Plan;
(g) August 1, 2002, authorizing an increase of 2,500,000 shares of Common Stock
subject to the Plan; and (h) June 27, 2003, authorizing an increase of
20,000,000 shares of Common Stock subject to the Plan (collectively, the
"Resolutions"), and; (ii) the power granted to the Board of Directors pursuant
to Section 14 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth herein.

      1. The first paragraph of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows:

            "3. Stock Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section
      12 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be
      optioned and sold under the Plan is 31,850,000 Shares. The Shares may be
      authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock."

      2. The terms and provisions of this Amendment shall modify and supersede
all inconsistent terms and provisions set forth in the Plan, and except as
expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of each of the
Plan shall continue in full force and effect.

      3. Each increase to the Plan was effective as of the date of the
Resolutions relating thereto and described above.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION


I, Christian Chabot, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tableau Software, Inc.;


2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;


3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;


4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;


(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and


5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





---




(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: August 8, 2014





By:_/s/ Christian ChabotChristian ChabotChief Executive Officer(Principal ExecutiveOfficer)
Donna WHITESIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3667

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0367 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STORMI RENEA WILKES ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
-day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including April 14 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

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

March 9 2020

03/09/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0367
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                           81,939
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                          92,787
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                     189
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                             1,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,847
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                         37,208
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                        2,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                             39,383
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                        44,000
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                               44
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                               22
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                          615
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                        10,849
<NET-ASSETS>                                    55,464
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                                7,797
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                   4,630
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          3,168
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                         1,623
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                       10,205
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                           14,996
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                        3,047
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                             22
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                          33,949
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        (1,129)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                            2,750
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,470
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                  4,630
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                            38,490
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                           977.95
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                  93.44
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         348.87
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                             89.87
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                            1260.55
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                    .12


</TABLE>