alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S.S., Mother of T.D. and L.D., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D19-523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: John Yanchunis and Ariana Tadler

Defendants’ Attorneys: Anne Mortimer, Sam Dannon, and John Deliano

A further case management conference was held on June 15, 2017. A further case 

management conference is set for September 28, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint 

case management statement by September 21, 2017. 

The parties shall file a joint identification of the cases that are presently members of this 

multi-district litigation by June 19, 2017.

The Court sets the following case schedule:

Scheduled Event Date

Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss Mot.: May 22, 2017 (35 pages)

Opp’n: June 30, 2017 (35 pages)

Reply: August 1, 2017 (15 pages)

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 106 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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

Hearing on First Motion to Dismiss August 24, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

Deadline to File Second Consolidated Amended 

Complaint

October 20, 2017

Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss Mot.: November 10, 2017

Opp’n: December 6, 2017

Reply: December 20, 2017

Hearing on Second Motion to Dismiss January 25, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.

Motion for Class Certification and Daubert Motions Class Cert. Mot.: March 9, 2018

Class Cert. Opp’n &Defs.

Daubert Mot.: April 25, 2018

Class Cert. Reply, Pls. Daubert 

Mot. & Pls. Daubert Opp’n: 

May 30, 2018

Defs. Daubert Opp’n: June 21, 

2018

No Daubert replies. 

Hearing on Motion for Class Certification and Daubert

Motions

July 12, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.

Close of Fact Discovery October 12, 2018

Opening Expert Reports November 2, 2018

Rebuttal Expert Reports November 27, 2018

Close of Expert Discovery December 21, 2018

Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions Mot.: January 10, 2019

Opp’n: February 7, 2019

Replies: February 25, 2019

Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment March 14, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

Pre-Trial Conference May 16, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

Trial May 31, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.

Trial Duration 10 days

Briefing Schedule on Post-Trial Motions Mot.: July 17, 2019

Opp’n: July 31, 2019

Reply: August 9, 2019

Hearing on Post-Trial Motions August 29, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 106 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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: June 15, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 106 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 3
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8039** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS COOK, III, a/k/a Mex, a/k/a Sport , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:10

- cr - 00296

- HMH

- 4; 6:13

- cv - 03123

- HMH )

Submitted : March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina ; Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonab le jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

– El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

– 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on p rocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

– 85. We have independently reviewed th e record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Andre JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**I, Marc Holliday, certify that:**

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SL Green Realty Corp. (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; and

 

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.

 
| Date: March 16, 2012 |                    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                    |
|                      |                    |
| /s/ Marc Holliday         |                    |
| Name:                     | Marc Holliday           |   |
| Title:                    | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 13.1

                                  QUINENCO S.A.
              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Francisco Perez Mackenna, the Chief Executive Officer of Quinenco S.A. (the
"Company"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

1.    the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
      2003, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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: June 29, 2004

                                         /s/ Francisco Perez Mackenna
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Francisco Perez Mackenna
                                         Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Mitchell Bernard JOHNSON

CR-17-0081

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Brian Curtis NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# m8557.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.7.2017 C(2017) 5419 final To the notifying part ies : Subject : Case M . 8557 – CCMP CAPITAL / MSD AQUA PARTNERS / HAYWARD INDUSTRIES Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 29 June 2017, the European Commission received notification of a proposed conc entration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which CCMP Capital, LP ("CCMP", USA) and MSD Aqua Partners, LLC ("MSD Aqua", USA), controlled by MSD Partners LP ("MSD Partners", USA) and belonging to the MSD group of companies, indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Hayward Industries, Inc. ("Hayward", USA) by way of a purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for CCMP: global private equity firm focused on making buyout and growth equity investments in North America and Europe in the consumer, industrial and healthcare industries; - for MSD Aqua: investment entity within the MSD group of companies which is active in the debt and equity of public and private companies, real estate and other asset classes; - for Hayward: manufacturer and supplier of swimming pool equipment. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( b ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
( S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 220 , . 08.7 . 2017 , p. 65 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco Life Insurance
Company of New Jersey (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 23, 2007 |  |  |  |       
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Tucker I. Marr     
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Tucker I. Marr         
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Mark C. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. SC18-1531

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 13, 2019

Mark C. Jackson, pro se, Starke, Florida, for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

PER CURIAM.

Mark C. Jackson-a pro se litigant-filed a petition to invoke this Court's discretionary jurisdiction. By order dated April 11, 2019, we denied Jackson's petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him. *Jackson v. State* , No. SC18-1531, 2019 WL 1575238 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2019) ; *see* Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion).

While his case was pending in this Court, Jackson filed a litany of motions that were frivolous, devoid of merit, or sought relief previously denied in case numbers SC12-367 and SC17-1628. Because of his filing history, Jackson was ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting further pro se documents in this Court. *See**State v. Spencer* , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that a litigant be provided notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed). Jackson has now filed a response to the Court's order.

We conclude that Jackson has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Through his persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief, Jackson has abused the judicial process. Jackson's response neglected to provide any justification for this abuse or to express remorse for his repeated misuse of the Court's resources. We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Jackson will continue to burden this Court with frivolous and meritless filings, diverting finite judicial resources from other litigants. *See**Pettway v. McNeil* , 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, letters, or other requests for relief submitted by Mark C. Jackson, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.1 Counsel may file on Jackson's behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

1

In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other pro se litigants who have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. *See, e.g.* , *Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc.* , 267 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2019) ; *Shirah v. State* , 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018) ; *Woodson v. State* , 242 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2018) ; *Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon* , 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018).
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                FDA Drug Info Rounds Video

FDA Drug Info Rounds Video Home
          Drugs
          Resources | Drugs
          Information for Health Care Professionals | Drugs
          FDA Drug Info Rounds Video
          Drug Info Rounds Video: Expanded AccessFDA Drug Info Rounds Video Drug Info Rounds Video: Expanded Access
  
  	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintExpanded access allows patients to use investigational drugs outside of clinical trials. FDA Drug Info Rounds pharmacists discuss the requirements that must be met before FDA can authorize Expanded Access and discuss the safeguards in place to avoid exposing patients to unnecessary risks.

Related Information

FDA Drug Info Rounds Video
	Expanded Access - Transcript

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      02/19/2016
              
              
Regulated Product(s)
		 DrugsFDA Drug Info Rounds Video
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
Cleveland GRAHAM, Jr., Appellant, v. Delores GRAHAM, Appellee.

Nos. 3D18-1356 & 3D18-738

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-18 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-18 Filed 06/18/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18



             AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX TO THE BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.


                           EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

Amendment made this 11th day of April, 1996, by Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
("Beverly"), but to be effective as of January 1, 1996.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
         WHEREAS, Beverly sponsors the Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Executive
Retirement Plan (the "Plan");


         WHEREAS, Beverly now desires to adopt an amendment to change the date
on which a Participant in the Plan must be employed in order to be eligible for
matching contributions under the Plan;


         WHEREAS, Beverly is empowered and authorized to amend the Plan
pursuant to Article III of the Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive Retirement Plan is hereby amended effective as of
January 1, 1996, in the following respect:

1.       The first sentence of Section 5.1, as previously amended by Amendment
4 to the Executive Retirement Plan, is hereby amended to read as follows:


         5.1     Matching Contributions.  Subject to the requirements and
         restrictions of this Article V, and subject also to the amendment or
         termination of the Plan, as of the last day of each Plan Year, the
         Company may, in its sole discretion, depending on profits, determine
         to make a matching contribution on behalf of each Participant who (a)
         has contributed at least two (2)%) of his Compensation for the Plan
         Year, (b) is employed by the Company as of December 31 of such year,
         or who retired during such Plan Year at or over age 59 1/2 with at
         least 10 Years of Service, and (c) has not withdrawn any funds that
         were used to calculate the company match from the Plan during that
         Plan Year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Beverly has caused this Amendment Number 6 to be
executed by a duly authorized representative, as of the day and year first
written above.


                                        BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.




                                        By:      /s/ Robert W. Pommerville
                                                -------------------------
                                                Its: Executive Vice President
                                                     General Counsel and
                                                     Secretary
Geronimo DEJESUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 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 

REQUEST TO ATTEND SUBSEQUENT STATUS CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON CASE NO. CV-01-20985 JF (RS) 

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP 

Daniel J. Furniss (State Bar No. 073531) 

Anne M. Rogaski (State Bar No. 184754) amrogaski@townsend.com 

379 Lytton Avenue 

Palo Alto, California 94301 

Telephone: 650-326-2400 

Facsimile: 650-326-2422 

MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO P.C. 

David Barmak 

12010 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 900 

Reston, Virginia 20190 

Telephone: 703-464-4800 

Facsimile: 703-464-4895 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DIGEX, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

JULIE WHITE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIGEX, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. CV-01-20985 JF (RS) 

REQUEST TO ATTEND 

SUBSEQUENT STATUS 

CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE 

AND ORDER THEREON 

Date: May 19, 2006 

Time: 10:30 a.m. 

Judge: The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

Dept: 3, 5th Floor 

 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-10(a), Defendant DIGEX, INC. (“DIGEX”), requests permission to 

participate in the Status Conference scheduled for May 19, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. by telephone. 

 DIGEX will be represented at the Status Conference by Anne M. Rogaski, whose direct telephone 

number is 650-463-7601. Counsel will make arrangements with the Court’s teleconference services for the 

telephonic appearance. 

**E-filed 5/10/06**

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 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 

REQUEST TO ATTEND SUBSEQUENT STATUS CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON - 2 - 

CASE NO.CV-01-20985 JF (RS) 

DATED: May 5, 2006 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP

By:/s/ Anne M. Rogaski 

Daniel J. Furniss 

Anne M. Rogaski 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DIGEX, INC. 

ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DIGEX, INC. may appear at the 

Status Conference, set for May 19, 2006, by telephone. 

Date: 

 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

 United States District Court Judge 

60766351 v1 

5/10/06

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 92 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2