alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Claire Hornbuckle CLEMENTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. J. Warren HUGHES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3390

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 14

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-25 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

**OFFICER OF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for three months ended June 30,2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Randy Moeder, Chief Executive Officer and President ofHiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of Hiland Partners, LP (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| Date:  | August 12,  2005 | /s/ Randy  Moeder                      |   |
|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                  | Randy Moeder                           |
|   |                  | Chief  Executive Officer and President |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Seraph Security Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cherish Adams, President of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 16, 2009By: /s/ Cherish AdamsCherish AdamsPresident
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

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 

 

Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 

APPLICANT

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Reset Form

SIX4THREE, LLC, 3:17-cv-00359

FACEBOOK, INC.

David S. Godkin

David S. Godkin

David S. Godkin

Mass. Supreme Judicial Ct

Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC

Basil P. Fthenakis

Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP

280 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210

Criterion Law, 2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite

200, Palo Alto, CA 994303

(617) 307-6100 (650) 352-8400

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com bpf@criterionlaw.com

196530

01/25/17

-WHA

January 26, 2017.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 1
exhibit10_1.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.1

    Form
of the Amendment to Forbearance Agreement dated January 12,
2009


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    AMENDMENT TO FORBEARANCE
AGREEMENT

     

    This
AMENDMENT, dated as of January 12, 2009 (this “Amendment”) by and
among Lazy Days’ R.V. Center, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Issuer”), The Bank of
New York, a New York banking corporation as indenture trustee(the “Trustee”), and the
Noteholder signatory hereto (the “Noteholder”), a
holder of the Issuer’s unsecured 11.75% Senior Notes due May 15, 2012, amends
and supplements the Forbearance Agreement originally dated December 12, 2008
(the “Forbearance
Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings
assigned in the Forbearance Agreement unless otherwise defined
herein.

     

    W I T N E S S E T
H

     

    WHEREAS,
the parties to the Forbearance Agreement desire to extend the term of the
Forbearance Period.

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Noteholder hereby
agree as follows:

     

    1. The Noteholder agrees that
the reference to January 15, 2009 in Section 1(b) of the Forbearance Agreement
shall hereby be replaced by February 16, 2009.

     

    2. This Amendment may be signed
in counterparts, each of which, when taken together, shall be deemed an
original.  Execution of this Amendment is effective if a signature is
delivered by facsimile transmission or electronic (e.g. “pdf”)
transmission.

     

    3. Except as expressly set
forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or otherwise alter,
modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations,
covenants or agreements contained in the Forbearance Agreement, all of which
shall remain in full force and effect.

     


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Noteholder have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written
above.

     

    LAZY DAYS R.V. CENTER,
INC.

     

    By:___________________________

     

    Name:

    Title:

    


     

    THE
BANK OF NEW YORK

     

    By:____________________________

     

    Name:

     

    Title:

     


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    NOTEHOLDER

     

    By:
______________________

     

    Name:

     

    Title:

     

    Address:

     

    Attn:

     

    Tel:

     

    Fax:

     

    Email:

     

    Principal
Amount of Senior Notes Held:

     

    Date:
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

FAST TRAK INVESTMENT COMPANY, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD P SAX, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00257-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 

FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On April 25, 2017, the Court held a case management conference, where Plaintiff did not 

appear. 

Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no 

later than May 2, 2017, why they should not pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 for 

their failure to appear at the case management conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2017

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
1

Although the jury found for Jackson on her negligence claim, it awarded her no

compensatory damages.

FINAL JUDGMENT – PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PAMELA JACKSON, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1345-N

§

METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, §

§

Defendant. §

FINAL JUDGMENT

By separate Order dated July 6, 2006 the Court granted the Parties’ stipulated

dismissal of Defendant Ceridian Corporation; by separate Order dated August 31, 2006 the

Court granted the Parties’ stipulated dismissal of Defendant Icon Benefits Administrators II,

L.P.; by separate Order on the record on January 23, 2007 the Court granted the Parties’

stipulated dismissal of Defendants Sonya Carter Jordan and Tim Meeks. On January 25,

2007, Jackson received a jury verdict against Defendant Methodist Hospitals of Dallas in the

amount of $10,322.64 for her Family and Medical Leave Act claim.1

 By separate Order

dated September 25, 2007 the Court additionally awarded Jackson $30,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Finally, by separate Order of this same date the Court denied Jackson’s request for punitive

damages, or in the alternative an award of double her compensatory damages, and additional

Case 3:05-cv-01345-N Document 157 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1901
FINAL JUDGMENT – PAGE 2

attorneys’ fees and also rejected Jackson’s remaining claim under Employee Retirement

Income Security Act section 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140, which was not submitted to the jury.

Accordingly, the Court hereby awards Jackson judgment against Methodist in the

amount of $41,145.28. This award consists of $10,322.64 in principal, pre-judgment interest

in the amount of $822.64, and an award of $30,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Court further

orders that post-judgment interest shall accrue on the above Judgment amount, including prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 at the rate of 3.20% per

annum from the date of this Judgment until paid in full. As previously stated in the Order

of September 25, 2007, court costs are taxed against Methodist and in favor of Jackson. All

relief not expressly granted is denied. This is a final judgment.

Signed December 20, 2007.

_________________________________

David C. Godbey

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01345-N Document 157 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1902
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2558

___________ Robert F. Baker, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the B. Boyle; Pottawattamie County Jail, * Southern District of Iowa. Members of the Medical Staff; * R.N., S.W., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 19, 2009 Filed: June 25, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Baker (Baker) appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice for failu re to exhaust administrative remedies. After careful review, see Rouse v. Benson , 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating a grant of summary judgment is re viewed de novo), we conclude dismissal-2- was proper because the record before the di strict court showed Baker did not complete the third step of Pottawattamie County Jail’s grievance procedure, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (declaring, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in a ny jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are av ailable are exhausted” ); Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly ”); Johnson v. Jones , 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”), and nothing in the record indicates this step in the procedure wa s unavailable to Baker, see Chelette v. Harris , 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding an inmate’s subjective beliefs, logical or otherwise, are irrelevant in determining whether ad ministrative procedures are available). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Baker’s motion to obtain state court transcripts. SeeHuelsman v. Civic Ctr. Corp. , 873 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1989) (relating that “[a]n appellate court can pr operly consider only the record and facts before the district court and thus only thos e papers and exhibits filed in the district court can constitute the record on appeal”).

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUINCY LAMONT SALLIEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:10-cr-00298-RDB-1; 1:13-cv-01443-RDB)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quincy Lamont Salliey, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quincy Lamont Salliey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after 

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

August 4, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on December 1, 

2014.1 Because Salliey failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

 1 In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), an incarcerated inmate’s notice of 

appeal is deemed “filed” when deposited into the institution’s 

mail system. To demonstrate timely filing, the notice must 

either be notarized or sworn to in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1746 (2012). Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Here, Salliey failed 

to date his notice of appeal or include a certificate of 

service. The envelope also fails to identify a postmark date or 

the date Salliey delivered it to prison officials for mailing. 

Finally, Salliey does not provide the date he filed his notice 

of appeal in his informal brief. Under these circumstances, we 

are confined to the date the district court filed the notice of 

appeal. 
3

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal.2 We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2 Although Salliey alleged in his notice of appeal that he 

filed a motion for reconsideration that is still pending in the 

district court, this assertion is belied by the record.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. VAGAS DAVIS, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr
- 00309

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Vagas Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vagas Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012) . We have reviewed the record included on appeal and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Davis , No. 3:10

- cr
00309

- HEH

- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis Lacey, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stream Global Services, 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. | Omitted;
|-- | --------



|4. | Omitted; and
|-- | ------------



|5. | Omitted.
|-- | --------



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                  
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 30, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Dennis Lacey                                                                              
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Dennis Lacey                                                                                     
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Case 3:05-cv-01914-MHP Document 14 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
January 6, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:05-cv-01914-MHP Document 14 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2942

_____________________________
D EMETRI B LOUNT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Michael S. Sharrit , Judge

. July 17, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee; Demetri Blount, pro se
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# L_2017237EN.01006301.xml

| 15.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 237/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 237/63

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1554

of 5 September 2017

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Jambon noir de Bigorre (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, France's application to register the name ‘Jambon noir de Bigorre’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Jambon noir de Bigorre’ 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 ‘Jambon noir de Bigorre’ 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 ‘Jambon noir de Bigorre’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Jambon noir de Bigorre’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, 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, 5 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 148, 12.5.2017, 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

---