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

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC.; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

Scott Sagaria (State Bar No.217981)

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com

Elliot Gale (State Bar No. 263326)

egale@sagarialaw.com

Joe Angelo (State Bar No. 268542)

jangelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 200

Roseville, California 95661

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 279-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Betty Grinder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BETTY GRINDER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC.; 

et. al.,

Defendants.

Federal Case No.: 3:17-cv-00343-WHA

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT RC 

WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Betty Grinder and defendant 

RC Willey Home Furnishings, Inc. (“Willey”), through their designated counsel, that Willey be 

dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 41(a)(2), and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 110 Filed 01/08/18 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 2

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC.; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

DATED: December 4, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot W. Gale

Elliot W. Gale

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Betty Grinder 

DATED: December 4, 2017 Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

By: /s/David W. Tufts

David W. Tufts

Attorneys for Defendant

RC Willey Home Furnishings, Inc.

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that David W. Tufts has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Willey is dismissed with prejudice from the 

above-captioned action and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

WILLIAM H. ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This dismissal is with prejudice as to plaintiff's claims only (i.e., without prejudice to any potential cross-claims that might possibly be asserted later by co-defendants against Willey). January 8, 2018.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 110 Filed 01/08/18 Page 2 of 2
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Asia Electrical Power International Group Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Yulong Guo, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.




|/s/ Yulong GuoYulong Guo
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2007
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00575

- CR

C iarra PLEASANT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 14, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 387732

The Honorable Susan Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T h e court reporter ’ s notification of late record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended

to January 16, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

----

|   | 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  Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      | Gamecorp    Ltd. |                                                                                            |
|---------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |             |                                                                                            |   |
| Date: March 30,      2009 | By:              | /s/ John G.      Simmonds                                                                       |   |
|                      |             | Name: John G.      Simmonds                                                                |   |
|                      |             | Title : Principal Executive      Officer CEO, Director and Chairman      of the Board |   |
|                      |             |                                                                                            |   |
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-18-00241-CV 

________________________

ANNETTE MANCILLAS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

LUBBOCK WILD WINGS, LTD., WESTEX WINGS MANAGEMENT, LC, 

HOWBRO INVESTMENTS, LTD., HOW NO. 1, AND 

BUFFALO WILD WINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC., APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 99th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2017-524,467; Honorable William C. Sowder, Presiding 

 

July 17, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Annette Mancillas, appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary 

judgment in favor of Appellee, Lubbock Wild Wings, Ltd.1 but has not paid the required 

 

1 The trial court’s order granting Lubbock Wild Wings, Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment does 

not address Mancillas’s claims against the other defendants. The order states, however, “[t]his order 

disposes of all claims and parties, making it final and appealable.” See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 

S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).
2

filing fee. By letter dated June 19, 2018, the clerk of this court advised Mancillas that a 

filing fee of $205 was overdue and that unless she was excused from paying costs under 

appellate rule 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by June 29 would result in dismissal of the 

appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 42.3(c).

To date, Mancillas has not responded to the clerk’s letter, paid the filing fee, made 

other arrangements, or sought to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P.

12.1(b), 20.1. Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this court is 

required to collect filing fees set by statute or by the Texas Supreme Court when an item 

is presented for filing. See id. at 5, 12.1(b). Although the filing of a proper notice of appeal 

invokes an appellate court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of 

appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. Id. at 25.1(b).

Accordingly, having provided Mancillas a reasonable opportunity to cure this 

defect, this appeal is dismissed for Mancillas’s failure to comply with a requirement of the 

appellate rules and with a notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified time. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Per Curiam
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00191

- CR

Kevin Lee Farris
v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 19404

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 1, 2016.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 11 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-12870

 

D. C. Docket No. 94-02700 CV-TWT-1

SALVADOR MAGLUTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

F.P. SAM SAMPLES,

MICHAEL W. GARRETT,

MICHAEL BELL,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

 

(June 11, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

PER CURIAM:

_______________________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct.

1

1999 (1971).

2

Appellant/Plaintiff, Salvador Magluta, appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment on his Bivens action. After reviewing the record, 1

reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we first

conclude that the evidence does not establish that the conditions of Magluta’s

pretrial detention amounted to punishment, in violation of his Fifth Amendment

substantive due process rights. Magluta posed a serious and legitimate security

risk, and his detention was not an exaggerated response.

We conclude from the record, moreover, that, regardless of whether

Magluta had a protected liberty interest, he received all the process he was due.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE d/b/a Gainesville Regional Utilities, Appellant, v. Jacob T. RODGERS and William Stormant, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4545

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
S. J. Res. 33 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty one 

Joint Resolution 

Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, as most 

recently increased by Public Law 117–50 (31 U.S.C. 3101 note), 

is increased by $2,500,000,000,000. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Stephen BRAINARD, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AIR CRITICAL CARE, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0074

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
EX PARTE V.A.

1161172 (2160487)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN C. NEWMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-95-66, CA-98-611-R) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman C. Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herman C. Newman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Newman , Nos. CR-95-66;CA-98-611-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 22, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 13.2 TO FORM 10-K

 Report of Daniel G. Matthews & Associates, Inc. concerning financial statements
          for 1995 presented in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders



                     DANIEL G. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                            210 EAST WELLONS STREET
                        SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA 27577
                                  919-934-7116

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

Board of Directors
Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company
Post Office Box 309
Four Oaks, North Carolina 27524

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the Four Oaks Bank & Trust
Company as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related statements of income,
changes in shareholders' equity, cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1995. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Bank's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of the Four Oaks Bank & Trust
Company at December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations and
its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1995 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/ Daniel G. Matthews & Associates, Inc.


DANIEL G. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

February 20, 1996
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER PROFFITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRIEND TRUSTED, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00281-MMC 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPY OF 

COMPLAINT

On January 24, 2017, the above-titled action was reassigned to the undersigned.

To facilitate the Court's review of the case, plaintiff Heather Profitt is hereby 

DIRECTED to submit forthwith a chambers copy of her complaint, filed January 19, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00281-MMC Document 12 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
THE A CONSULTING TEAM, INC.
      Series A Preferred Stock.
 Number of Designated Shares of Series A Preferred Stock
 Dividends pro rata
 Rights
on Liquidation, Dissolution or Winding-Up
 1




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
   Voting
 Option Conversion.
  -2-




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
 provided however
    -3-




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
    provided however
 -4-




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
       Automatic Conversion
 Redemption
 -5-




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2.1
  THE A CONSULTING TEAM, INC.By:
    /s/ Richard D. FalconeName:
    Richard D. FalconeTitle: Chief Financial Officer -6-
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DIRECTING SAMSUNG TO FILE PROVISIONALLY UNDER 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 DIRECTING SAMSUNG TO 

FILE PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1112

On January 7, 2019, third party Samsung filed a motion to file under seal deposition 

testimony and specific trial exhibits that the FTC and Qualcomm plan to introduce on January 7, 

2019. ECF No. 1112. However, Samsung did not e-file redacted and unredacted versions of the 

documents sought to be filed under seal, or unredacted versions, if Samsung seeks to file entire 

documents under seal. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(C)-(D). Samsung is hereby ORDERED to e-file 

provisionally under seal by 9:00 p.m., Friday, January 7, 2019, unredacted versions of the 

documents it seeks to seal, which indicate, “by highlighting or other clear method,” the portions of 

the documents that have been omitted from the redacted version. Id. Samsung need not file under 

seal the excerpts from the deposition of Andrew Hong that Samsung seeks to seal, as Qualcomm 

has provided those excerpts to the Court. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1118 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DIRECTING SAMSUNG TO FILE PROVISIONALLY UNDER 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1118 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1   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 Commerce Online Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kyle Gotshalk, Chief Executive Officer 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. /s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkCEO Date: January 5, 2010
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART BROADCOM’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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 IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART BROADCOM’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1359

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Broadcom’s motion to seal 

as follows. By Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at noon, Broadcom shall file redacted public versions 

of the below documents consistent with the Court’s sealing rulings. 

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

QX1005 Entirety DENIED. 

QX1009 BRCM174660 DENIED. 

QX1009 BRCM174661 GRANTED. 

Rango Deposition 68:1-19, 22-24; 69:11-70:15; 

70:18-24

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1364 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 1
First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement
(the “Amendment”) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (“Biomet”), and Roger P. Van Broeck (“Executive”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Change in Control Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein. 
 WHEREAS, Biomet and
Executive entered into that certain Change in Control Agreement dated as of September 20, 2006 (the “CIC Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.07 of the CIC Agreement, to the extent that any regulations or guidance issued under Code §409A would result in Executive being subject to the payment of any additional tax under Code §409A, the
Company and Executive agreed, to the extent reasonably possible, to amend the CIC Agreement in order to avoid the imposition of any such additional tax under Code §409A; and 
 WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive desire to amend the CIC Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3.01(b)(i): Post-CIC Good Reason; Other
Than for Cause or Disability. Section 3.01(b)(i) of the CIC Agreement is hereby amended to delete the final sentence of Section 3.01(b)(i) in its entirety. 
 2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the CIC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 *    *    *    *    * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement on
the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	BIOMET, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bradley J. Tandy

	Name:	 	Bradley J. Tandy
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	
	EXECUTIVE
		
		 	 /s/ Roger P. Van Broeck

	Name:	 	Roger P. Van Broeck
Carlos BONNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.