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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS YAHOO! INC. AND AABACO SMALL BUSINESS, LLC’S 

(1) MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION 

CASE NO.: 16-MD-02752-LHK

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS YAHOO! INC. AND 

AABACO SMALL BUSINESS, LLC’S (1) 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Date: August 24, 2017 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94-1 Filed 05/22/17 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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS YAHOO! INC. AND AABACO SMALL BUSINESS, LLC’S 

(1) MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

This matter came before the Court by motion of Defendants Yahoo! Inc. and Aabaco Small 

Business, LLC (together, “Defendants”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 

12(b)(6), to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint for lack of standing and failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants also requested that the Court take 

judicial notice of certain documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201. 

The Court, having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice, the pleadings and record on file, oral argument of 

counsel, and good cause, hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and GRANTS 

Defendants’ request for judicial notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________ ________________________________ 

 Lucy H. Koh 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 94-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Juan JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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

PROPOSED ORDER RE STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07212-EMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MICHAEL ROBEY, Individually and On Behalf

of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________

Case No. 3:16-cv-07212-EMC

[Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen]

CLASS ACTION

PROPOSED ORDER RE STIPULATION

REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Complaint Filed: December 16, 2016

Complaint Served: January 6, 2017

The Court, having considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation and good cause having been

shown, ORDERS that:

1. The case management conference currently set for March 16, 2017 be continued to

May 25, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_____________ By: ________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EDWARD M. CHEN

Case 3:16-cv-07212-EMC Document 20-1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 1

3/6/17

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:16-cv-07212-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GRAHAM B. SPANIER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 639 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE****WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA****March 6, 2008**SunTrust Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i), 229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR") (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"), for securitization transactions serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc, occurring after December 31, 2005 (the "Platform"). The Asserting Party  is not assessing compliance with any other criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the CFR. The Asserting Party used the applicable criteria in paragraph (d) of Title 17, Section 229.1122 of the CFR to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the twelve month period ending  December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"). Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion. SUNTRUST BANK Solely with Respect to Sections 229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii) By: /s/ Rosealma T. Burton Name: Rosealma T. BurtonTitle: First Vice President SUNTRUST BANK Solely with respect to Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i) By:  /s/ Tomas E. Suarez Name: Tomas E. Suarez Title: Group Vice President
Paul MILLER, Appellant, v. Jennifer Lloret DE GARCIA, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1446

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kendrick GRAHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff of Polk County, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0890

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
**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**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  December 20, 2007 | By:    | /s/                  Michel St-Pierre |
|------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Name:                                 | Michel                  St-Pierre |
|                                     |   | Title:                                | Chief                  Financial Officer |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 5638-007]

                    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                           ( print 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.                

                    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:                     *austin.brown124@gmail.com.*

Dated: February 4, 2025.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

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.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-02426 Filed 2-10-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Robin Lawrence JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 5

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Stephen G.
Luke, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 1.
  I have
  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nationwide Financial Solutions,
  Inc. (the registrant);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; andc)
  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; andb)
  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:
  February 8, 2006
  By:
  /s/ Stephen
  G. LukeStephen G.
  LukePresident
  and Chief Executive Officer
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

WILLIAM BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-07169-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This action was opened on December 15, 2016, when the court received from Petitioner a 

document entitled, “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Dkt. 1. In his “Notice to Court” filed 

on December 30, 2016, Petitioner explains that this action was opened in error because his petition 

was filed in the wrong court. Dkt. 3 at 2. The petition apparently was intended to be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rather than this court. Id. Thus, Petitioner 

requests that this court dismiss the instant action as opened in error and forward the petition to the 

Ninth Circuit for review.

Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that the petition was not intended to be filed 

in this court and was instead intended to be filed in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, this action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice because it was filed in the wrong court.

The Clerk of the Court shall send the original petition and its attachments to the Ninth 

Circuit for filing in that court. Prior to sending the petition, the Clerk shall substitute “United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit” as the caption on the top of page one of the petition, 

which currently states “United States District Court Northern District of California.” The Clerk 

shall also send a copy of this Order and Petitioner’s “Notice to Court” (dkt. 3) to the Ninth Circuit

to explain why the petition is being redirected to that court. 

No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2017 

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-07169-DMR Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 2
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

WILLIAM BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:16-cv-07169-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 27, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

William Brown ID: AS7822

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127 

Dated: January 27, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:16-cv-07169-DMR Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 2
# C_2017277EN.01002702.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/27

---

Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-382/17)

(2017/C 277/40)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and L. Nicolae, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to develop, implement and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the flag-State-related activities of its administration, certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards, by 17 June 2012, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to develop, implement and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the flag-State-related activities of its administration, certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards, by 17 June 2012, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements;

1

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 8(1) of the Directive clearly lays down that by 17 June 2012 the Member States must develop, implement and maintain the quality management system referred to.

It is now June 2017 and the Portuguese Republic has still not complied with Article 8(1).

By acting in that manner, the Portuguese administration is undermining the objectives pursued by the Directive, jeopardising maritime safety and the protection of the environment. In addition, the conduct of the Portuguese administration carries the risk of creating an unfair competitive advantage for the Portuguese fleet in relation to other Member States’ fleets.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 131, p. 132.

1

---
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, 1999

Before 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’s

opinion 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
Carlos Resharde ANDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-1912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus is denied.
**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 ofInspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Adrian Adams, Chief Executive Officer 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: 

 

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 containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: February 25, 2011
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC. -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

Scott J. Sagaria (SBN 217981)

SJSagaria@sagarialaw.com

Elliot W. Gale (SBN 263326)

EGale@sagarialaw.com

Joe Angelo (SBN 268542)

JAngelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste 100

Roseville, CA 95661

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 297-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff Betty Grinder

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY GRINDER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

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

 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH 

DEFENDANT RC WILLEY HOME 

FURNISHINGS, INC.

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT plaintiff Betty Grinder and defendant RC Willey 

Home Furnishings, Inc., by and through their respective counsel of record, have reached a 

settlement in principle of the above captioned case and are in the process of documenting said 

settlement. The Parties believe the settlement will be finalized within sixty (60) days and will 

request dismissal of RC Willey Home Furnishings, Inc. from this action upon finalization. 

Sagaria Law, P.C.

Dated: September 25, 2017 By: /s/ Elliot Gale 

Elliot Gale

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

//

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 90 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS, INC. -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

Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

Dated: September 25, 2017 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 Notice. I hereby attest that David W. Tufts has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 90 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 2