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

 DEFENDANT BELL’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-CV-00373-LHK

1182104 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

STUART L. GASNER - # 164675 

sgasner@keker.com 

JO W. GOLUB - # 246224 

jgolub@keker.com 

EDWARD A. BAYLEY - # 267532 

ebayley@keker.com 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: 415 391 5400 

Facsimile: 415 397 7188 

Attorneys for Defendant RONALD S. BELL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE YAHOO! INC. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL 

ACTIONS. 

Case No. 17-CV-00373-LHK

DEFENDANT RONALD S. BELL’S 

JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS YAHOO! 

INC. AND MARISSA MAYER’S NOTICE 

OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; 

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

Date: May 3, 2018 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Dept: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Defendant Ronald S. Bell hereby joins in the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second 

Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Altaba Inc., formerly known as Yahoo! 

Inc. and Marissa Mayer (Dkt. 75) (the “Motion”). For the reasons set forth in the Motion, the 

Court should dismiss both counts of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations 

of the Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. 70) as against Mr. Bell in their entirety and with prejudice. 

Dated: March 2, 2018 

By:

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

Jo. W. Golub 

JO W. GOLUB 

 Attorneys for Defendant RONALD S. 

BELL

Case 5:17-cv-00373-LHK Document 79 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Su preme Court No. DA 21

- 0130
ST ATE OF MONTANA, Pl aintiff and Appellee,

v. STE PHEN DEAN PRUITT, Defen dant and Appellant
.

___________________________________________________ ORDER

___________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Counsel ’s motion to withdra w as counsel of record for Defendant/

Appellant and g ood c ause appearin g; IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D t hat the Defendant/ Appellant in thi s matter shall file a respo nse to t his Motion within thirty (30) days of th e date of this Order. This response must be served upon a l l counsel o f

re cord, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, an d Appellate Counse l’ s Office

1 05/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-01302

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice this Order to all counsel of record and to Defend ant/ Appellant at h is las t known addres s Si gned and dated a s indicated below.

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

May 6 2022
In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: S e p te m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 4

S1 4 A0 7 6 3 . THE S T ATE v . HOOD.
B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e . Ja m e s Ho o d wa s trie d b y a Cla rk e Co u n ty ju ry , c o n v ic te d o f m u rd e r a n d

se v e ra l o th e r c rim e s, a n d se n te n c e d fo r th e m u rd e r to a te rm of im

p riso n m e n t fo r life with th e p ossib ility o f p a ro le

. Th e S ta te a p p e a ls, c on te n d in g th a t Ho o d in ste a d sh o u ld h a v e be e n se n te n c e d to im p riso n m e n t fo r life with o u t th e
p o ssib ility o f p a ro le

. Th e p ro b le m is, Ho o d file d a tim e ly m o tio n fo r n e w tria l, h is m o tio n wa s p e n d in g wh e n th e S ta te file d its n o tic e o f a p pe a l, a n d a s fa r a s

we k n o w, h is m o tio n still is p e n d in g to d ay . At th is po in t, th e S ta te ’s n o tic e o f a p p e a l h a s n o t y e t rip e ne d , a n d th e tria l

c o u rt re ta in s ju risd ic tio n to d isp o se o f th e m o tio n fo r n e w t r i a l

. S e e Ho u sin g Au th

. o f City o f Atla n tav . Ge te r, 2 52 Ga . 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (3 1 2 S E2 d 3 0 9 ) (1 9 8 4 ). If th e m otio n fo r n e w tria l is g r a n te d, th e ju d g m e n t fro m wh ic h th e S ta te n o w

se e k s to a p p e a l will b e se t a sid e , a n d th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l p re v io u sly file d b y th e S ta te will b e r e n d e r e d m o o t, a lth o u g h th e S ta te m ig ht th e n, o f c ou rse , filea n o th e r n o tic e o f a p p e a l to e x e rc ise its sta tu to ry p re ro g a tiv e to a pp e a l fro m th e
g ra n t o f a n e w tria l. S e e OCGA § 5 -7 -1 e t se q
. If th e m o tio n fo r n e w tri a l i s d e n ie d , th e ju d g m e n t fro m wh ic h th e Sta te n o w se e k s to a p p e a l will sta n d , a n d th e n o tic e of a

pp e a l p re v io u sly file d b y th e S ta te th e n will rip e n. S e e , e . g ., He a rd

v . S ta te , 2 7 4 Ga

. 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (1 ), n . 2 (5 5 2 S E 2 d 8 1 8 ) (2 0 0 1 ); Mille r v . S ta te , 2 7 3 Ga

. 8 3 1 , n . 1 (5 46 S E2 d 52 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ); Ha n n v . Sta te , 2 9 2 Ga

. A p p . 7 19 , 7 2 0 (1 ) (6 6 5 S E 2 d 7 3 1) (2 0 0 8 ); He a rst v . S ta te , 21 2 Ga

. Ap p . 4 9 2 , 4 9 4 (2 ) (4 4 1 S E2 d 9 1 4 ) (1 9 9 4 ); O’Ke lly v . S ta te , 1 9 6 Ga

. Ap p . 8 6 0 ( 1 ) (3 9 7 S E2 d 1 9 7 ) (1 9 9 0);
Ho p e v . S ta te , 1 93 Ga

. Ap p . 2 0 2, 2 0 3 (1 ) (a ) ( 38 7 S E2 d 41 4) (1 98 9). In th e

m e a n tim e , h o we v e r, th is c a se p r o p e rly re m a in s w ith in th e ju risd ic tio n of th e tria l

c o u rt. Ac c o rd in g ly , th e a

p p e a l is d ism isse d

. 1 Ap p e a l d ism isse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c ur.

1 See generally Christopher J. McFadd e n e t a l

. , G a . A p p e l l a t e Practice, §§ 11:16-11:23 (2013-2014 ed.). 2
Kenny SILVA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10133 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JASON ANTHONY CASTILLO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 27

- 2

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jason Anthony Castillo pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. The sole issue on ap peal is whether the district court erred in denying Castillo an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Castillo challenges the district court’s

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 18, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10133 Document: 00512874858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2014No. 14

- 10133

refusal to award him credit for acceptance of responsibility on the ground that
he continued to use marijuana while on pretrial release, arguing that his use of drugs while on pretrial release was the result of an addi c tion and not indicative of a lack of acceptance of responsibility.
We review the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility “under a standard of review even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard,” and will affirm unless the denial is “without foundation.” United States v. Rudzavice , 586 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2009). Although a defendant wh o pleads guilty prior to trial and truthfully admits relevant conduct may qualify for the reduction, “this evidence may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.” § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). We have co nsistently upheld the denial of reductions for acceptance of responsibility where, as is the case here, defendants have violated the conditions of their pretrial release. See United States v. Rickett , 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Flu cas , 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996) ; United States v. Hooten , 942 F.2d 878, 883 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990) . In Flucas , we specifically rejected the argument that the district court had ruled improperly because the defendant ’ s drug use “did not show a lack of contrition but, instead, was a result of his drug addiction.” 99 F.3d at 180. Castillo has not denied that he used marijuana in violation of the express terms of the cond itions of his pretrial rele ase. Based on the undisputed evidence, the district court’s determination that Castillo was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1 was not without foundation. Rudzavice , 586 F.3d at 315. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-10133 Document: 00512874858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2014
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Bryan Markert, Secretary and Treasurer of
Carolyn River Projects Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Carolyn River
      Projects Ltd. for the period ended November 30, 2008 (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 results of
      operations of Carolyn River Projects Ltd.                                                                    

Dated: January 13, 2009

| | /s/
      Bryan Markert               
| | --------------------------------------
| | Bryan Markert, Secretary and Treasurer
| | (Principal Financial Officer)         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Carolyn River
Projects Ltd. and will be retained by Carolyn River Projects Ltd. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# L_2017104EN.01000101.xml

| 20.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 104/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 104/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/702

of 4 April 2017

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Marche (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Marche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Marche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Marche’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Marche’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Marche’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. — Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 April 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 474, 17.12.2016, p. 6.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 21-0130

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN DEAN PRUITT,

Defendant and Appellant. 

___________________________________________________

ORDER

___________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record for Defendant/Appellant and good cause appearing; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant/Appellant in this 

matter shall file a response to this Motion within thirty (30) days of the 

date of this Order. This response must be served upon all counsel of 

record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and 

Appellate Counsel’s Office

1 

05/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0130
2 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give 

notice this Order to all counsel of record and to Defendant/Appellant at 

his last known address 

Signed and dated as indicated below. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2022
# L_2017256EN.01000401.xml

| 4.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 256/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1788

of 22 September 2017

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ossolano (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Ossolano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Ossolano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ossolano’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ossolano’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Ossolano’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. — Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 186, 10.6.2017, p. 16.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

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

Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

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. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANITNG 

STIPULATED MOTION RE PROPOSED 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR POSTTRIAL BRIEFS

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, 

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

corporation, by Mabel Mak, BOON 

GLOBAL LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

company, F8 VIETNAM COMPANY 

LIMITED, a Vietnam company, 

CALIFORNIA FITNESS & YOGA 

CENTERS COMPANY LIMITED, a 

Vietnam company, and RANDY 

DOBSON, an individual,

 Counter-Defendants.

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 238 Filed 10/31/22 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

1 Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

This matter having come before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion Re Proposed 

Briefing Schedule for Post-Trial Briefs, and this Court having reviewed the moving papers, and good 

cause having been shown: 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulated Motion Re Proposed Briefing Schedule for Post-Trial 

Briefs and adopting the below briefing schedule.

Filing Deadline

Indyzen’s Post-Trial Brief October 31, 2022

Parkridge’s Motion for Directed Verdict and 

Response to Indyzen’s Post-Trial Brief

November 14, 2022

Indyzen’s Reply in support of Indyzen’s PostTrial Brief and Indyzen’s Response to 

Parkridge’s Motion for Directed Verdict

December 5, 2022

Parkridge’s Reply in support of Parkridge’s 

Motion for Directed Verdict and Parties to lodge 

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law

December 19, 2022

Dated: ________________________ ______________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

October 31, 2022

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 238 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 12, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 9431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02521]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 27, 2025.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Assistant Vice 
President, Mergers & Acquisitions and Enforcement) 2200 North Pearl 
Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272. Comments can also be sent 
electronically to [email protected]:
    1. Pratt Family PFBS Irrevocable Trust, Brian L. Pratt and Kenneth 
William Pratt, as trustees, all of Dallas, Texas; to join the Pratt 
Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting 
shares of PFBS Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Lakeside Bank, Rockwall, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2025-02521 Filed 2-11-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```