alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARUNEE RYLES,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

PALACE HOTEL,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C-04-5326 SBA (MEJ)

NOTICE AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

TO ALL PARTIES and their Attorneys of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been referred for a Settlement Conference before

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. The Settlement Conference shall take place on April 5, 2006 at

10:00 a.m. in Judge James’ chambers, located at the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th

Floor, San Francisco, California 94102. On the date of the settlement conference, counsel and parties shall

use the telephone adjacent to chambers' security entrance to notify the Court of their arrival. The parties

shall notify the Court if the matter has settled or been dismissed before the date of the conference.

Settlement Conference statements shall be submitted in accordance with Magistrate Judge James'

STANDING ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROCEDURES, a copy of which may be

obtained from the Northern District of California's website at 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/. From the homepage, click on the "Judges" tab on the left margin, then

Case 4:04-cv-05326-SBA Document 15 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

choose Magistrate Judge James.

When filing papers that require the Court to take any action (e.g. motions, calendaring issues,

administrative requests or a request to be excused from attendance), the parties shall, in addition to filing

papers electronically, lodge with chambers a printed copy of the papers by the close of the next court day

following the day the papers are filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked “Chambers

Copy” and shall be submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope clearly marked with Judge James’

name, case number and “E-Filing Chambers Copy.” Parties shall not file a paper copy of any document

with the Clerk’s Office that has already been filed electronically. Any proposed orders must also be

emailed to: mejpo@cand.uscourts.gov

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any

questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05326-SBA Document 15 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL CENTER 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00223-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION RE 

REPURCHASE OF INTEREST IN

COMPREHENSIVE CARE OF

CALIFORNIA, LLC,

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Receiver’s motion seeking an order (l) authorizing 

her to exercise an option to repurchase the interest of San Francisco Regional, LLC (“SFRC”) in 

Comprehensive Care of California, LLC (“CCOC”); and (2) directing that repurchase funds be 

held in an escrow account, is suitable for disposition without oral argument and the hearing set for 

January 26, 2018 is vacated. A hearing on the Receiver’s motion related to North America 3PL, 

LLC and Berkeley Healthcare Dynamics, LLC remains on calendar for that date.

Good cause appearing, the present motion is granted. “Interested party” Shirley Ma 

expressly does not oppose the Receiver’s request to exercise San Francisco Regional Center’s 

right to repurchase an interest in CCOC. Ma requests than in lieu of a deposit of the repurchase 

funds into escrow, payment instead be made directly to her. The Receiver has shown, however, 

sufficient questions remain unresolved regarding the ultimate rights to the funds such that payment 

to Ma at this juncture is not appropriate, and Ma has not shown undue prejudice will result from 

maintaining the status quo in such a manner. The funds shall be held in escrow.
CASE NO. 17-cv-00223-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2018

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.12

     

    
      AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      This
Amendment to the Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated
January 15, 2009 and effective as of October 1, 2008, is by and between
Synergx Systems Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal office at 209
Lafayette Drive, Syosset, New York 11791 (the “Company”), and Paul
Mendez, an individual with a mailing address of P.O. Box 2059, East Hampton, New
York 11937 (the “Executive”).

       

       

      WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Employment Agreement on June 10, 2008 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and

       

       

      WHEREAS, the Company desires
to increase the Executive’s salary, effective from October 1, 2008, with
the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain unchanged;

       

       

      NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

       

      1.           Section
4 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

       

      Compensation. As
compensation for all services to be rendered by Executive hereunder, the Company
agrees to pay to Executive, effective from October 1, 2008, a salary of $250,000
per Year, subject to adjustment by the Company’s Board of
Directors.  Executive’s salary shall be payable in the same manner the
Company pays compensation to its employees.  The Company shall
reimburse all of Executive's reasonable business expenses in accordance with the
Company's policies as in effect from time to time.

       

      The terms
and conditions of all other sections of the Employment Agreement shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.

       

      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of January 15,
2009.

       

       

      
        
          	 	Synergx
      Systems Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	
                  By:
      

                	/s/ 	 
	 	 	John
      Poserina	 
	 	 	Chief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary, Vice President and
    Director	 
	 	 	 	 


        

      

       

      
        
          
            
              	
                       

                    	
                      By:
      

                    	/s/ 	 
	 	 	Paul
      Mendez	 
	 	 	Chief
      Executive Officer
Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 1 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 2 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 3 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 4 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 5 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 6 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 7 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 8 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 9 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 10 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 11 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 12 of 13

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC   Document 9   Filed 03/02/17   Page 13 of 13
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2343

ALOYSIUS TABE BISONG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 10, 2012 Decided: May 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Stewart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Stephen M. Elliott, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aloysius Tabe Bisong, a native and citizen of 

Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider. 

Because Bisong fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully 

challenge the propriety of the Board’s denial of his motion to 

reconsider in the argument section of his brief, we find that he 

has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain . . . 

appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations 

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 

appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 

241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific 

dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim 

triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”). Accordingly, 

we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the 

Board. See In re: Bisong (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2011). 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9340-9341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5638-007]

Parker & Nelson Holdings, LLC, 3Phase Hydro, LLC; Notice of 
Transfer of Exemption

    1. On September 27, 2024, Parker & Nelson Holding, LLC, exemptee 
for the 105-kilowatt Ashland Papermill Hydroelectric Project No. 5638, 
filed a letter notifying the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) that the project was transferred from Parker & Nelson 
Holdings, LLC to 3Phase Hydro, LLC, pursuant to 18 CFR 4.106(i). The 
Ashland Papermill

[[Page 9341]]

Hydroelectric Project No. 5638 was originally issued an exemption on 
April 9, 1982.\1\ The project is located on the Squam River in Grafton 
County, New Hampshire. The transfer of an exemption does not require 
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mill Pond Associates, Inc., 19 FERC ] 62,045 (1982) (Order 
Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project 
of 5 Megawatts or Less). Subsequently, on February 27, 2013, the 
project was transferred to Northwoods Renewables, LLC, and on August 
15, 2022, it was transferred to Parker & Nelson Holdings, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. 3Phase Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Ashland Papermill 
Hydroelectric Project No. 5638. All correspondence regarding the 
project should be directed to Austin Brown, 3Phase Hydro, LLC, 39 Mill 
Pond Lane, Ashland, NH 03217, Email: [email protected].

    Dated: February 4, 2025.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-02426 Filed 2-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Verne Ecedro GOMEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 28, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

LAMBERT, J.

*1238Verne Ecedro Gomez appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The sole argument that he raises here is that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on justifiable attempted homicide and excusable attempted homicide as contained in Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 6.1 (2017). Because Gomez's trial counsel affirmatively agreed to the instruction being read to the jury without the definitions of justifiable attempted homicide and excusable attempted homicide, we affirm.

A trial court's failure to instruct the jury on either justifiable or excusable attempted homicide is fundamental error when a defendant is convicted of attempted manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed. *State v. Spencer* , 216 So. 3d 481, 483 (Fla. 2017). However, there are two exceptions to the application of the one-step-removed fundamental error analysis regarding the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on justifiable or excusable attempted homicide. *Id.* at 485-86. The first exception, recognized in *State v. Lucas* , 645 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1994), and *Armstrong v. State* , 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1991), provides that there is no fundamental error where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested an incomplete instruction, and it is directly applicable here.

During the jury instruction charge conference in Gomez's trial, the prosecutor specifically announced that based upon her earlier discussions with defense counsel, she had removed the justifiable and excusable attempted homicide language from the proposed introduction to attempted homicide jury instruction. The prosecutor further explained that the applicable case law also required the defense to make an express affirmative representation of its intent not to seek these instructions. In response, Gomez's trial counsel affirmatively agreed on the record and to the court that she was not seeking this instruction.

In *Spencer* , the court "reiterate[d] that the *Lucas**/**Armstrong* exception to the fundamental error rule continues to apply in situations where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested an incomplete [introduction to attempted homicide] instruction." 216 So. 3d at 488. Accordingly, although Gomez's conviction is one step removed from attempted manslaughter, we hold that under the circumstances of this case, no fundamental error was committed by the trial court by failing to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable attempted homicide. We affirm Gomez's judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, president of the Company, certifies, 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 her knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  November 12, 2010By:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 954-4400 

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

TO FILE APPEAL OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

C 05-01938 WHA 

19796\974269.1

Gerald Sobel 

Benjamin Hsing (Pro Hac Vice)

Jeffrey Horowitz (Pro Hac Vice)

KAYE SCHOLER LLP 

425 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10022-3598 

Telephone: (212) 836-8000 

Facsimile: (212) 836-8686 

Mark D. Petersen (State Bar No. 111956) 

Nan E. Joesten (State Bar No. 191288) 

Lucas Huizar (State Bar No. 227111) 

FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 954-4400 

Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CHIRON CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHIRON CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SOURCECF, INC.; SOURCECF 

CLINICAL RESEARCH & 

DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.; MAXOR 

NATIONAL PHARMACY SERVICES 

CORPORATION d/b/a IV SOLUTIONS; 

FOUNDATION CARE L.L.C.; and 

PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 05-01938 WHA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME IN WHICH 

TO FILE APPEAL OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 58(c), Plaintiff and Defendants in the above-entitled matter 

hereby stipulate to extend the time for Plaintiff to file an appeal of the Final Judgment in this 

matter from June 15, 2006, until thirty (30) days after the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion For 

Award Of Attorneys’ Fees As An Exceptional Case, as provided for in Fed. R. App. Proc. 

4(a)(4)(A). 

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 161 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 162 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 2
Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 954-4400 

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

TO FILE APPEAL OF FINAL JUDGMENT

C 05-01938 WHA 

- 2 - 19796\974269.1

Concurrence to the filing of this document was obtained from Richard P. Doyle, Jr. 

in compliance with General Order No. 45, Section X. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: June 14, 2005 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Mark D. Petersen 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CHIRON CORPORATION 

DATED: June 14, 2005 JANSSEN DOYLE LLP 

By: /s/ 

 Richard P. Doyle 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Hon. William H. Alsup 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 161 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 2 of 2


June 15, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document 162 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ANDREW LEON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUZMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00328-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a former California state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2018, the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner 

Settlement Program for settlement proceedings. On October 5, 2018, the Court’s September 18, 

2018 order was returned as undeliverable with the notation that plaintiff had been released on 

parole. See Dkt. No. 30. On October 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge Illman entered an order directing 

plaintiff to provide a current address so that a settlement conference could be scheduled. See Dkt. 

No. 31. On November 19, 2018, that order was returned as undeliverable, again with the notation 

that plaintiff had been paroled. See Dkt. No. 32. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se must promptly 

file a notice of change of address while an action is pending. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may, 

without prejudice, dismiss a complaint when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has 

been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of 

this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-

11(b). 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

More than sixty days have passed since the September 18, 2018 order was returned as 

undeliverable. The Court has not received a notice from plaintiff of a new address. Accordingly, 

the instant civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the 

Northern District Local Rules. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. The Clerk shall also send a copy of this 

order to Magistrate Judge Illman.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/108/2018
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Xsovt Brands, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:




(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: March 31, 2011
/s/ Avi KoschitzkiAvi Koschitzki, President and Chief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.