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

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 

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties attended a Case 

Management Conference on May 10, 2018. After considering the Joint Case Management 

Statement submitted by the parties and consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and 

good cause appearing, the case management schedule for this case is modified as follows:

1. AMENDING THE PLEADINGS. 

The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be August 

30, 2018. After that date, any amendment of the pleadings shall be governed by Rule 15 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. DISCOVERY. 

On or before September 28, 2018 all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the

parties. 

3. EXPERT WITNESSES.

The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses shall proceed as follows: 

Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 396 Filed 05/10/18 Page 1 of 2
CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

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

a. On or before November 30, 2018, parties will designate experts in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

b. On or before January 29, 2019, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed.

4. PRETRIAL MOTIONS.

All dispositive pretrial motions must be filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. 

Each party is limited to one motion for summary judgment absent leave of Court. All pretrial 

motions shall be heard no later than December 13, 2018. The Court encourages the participation 

at oral argument of lawyers who are early in their professional career (e.g., 0-10 years of 

experience).

5. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. 

The final pretrial conference will be held on March 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 

3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

Each party or lead counsel who will try the case shall attend personally. 

6. TRIAL DATE.

A jury trial shall commence on March 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 

United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2018

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 396 Filed 05/10/18 Page 2 of 2
Nicole ST. PEARRE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Patricia HYLEN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# L_2019031EN.01010801.xml

| 1.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 31/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/108

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2196 of 24 November 2017 establishing a network code on electricity emergency and restoration

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 312 of 28 November 2017
  )

On page 76, Article 36(8):

for:

‘8.   By 18 June 2019, each TSO shall submit to ENTSO for Electricity the data required to prepare and submit the report in accordance with paragraph 7.’,

read:

‘8.   By 18 June 2020, each TSO shall submit to ENTSO for Electricity the data required to prepare and submit the report in accordance with paragraph 7.’.

---
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE QUALCOMM SEALING DURING TRIAL

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 RE QUALCOMM SEALING

DURING TRIAL

If Qualcomm seeks to seal any of the exhibits to be introduced on Friday, January 11, 

2019, Qualcomm shall file a narrowly tailored motion to seal today as soon as possible. Moving 

forward, the Court requests that Qualcomm file timely and narrowly-tailored motions to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1200 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:17-cv-00010-HRL   Document 1   Filed 01/03/17   Page 1 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00010-HRL   Document 1   Filed 01/03/17   Page 2 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00010-HRL   Document 1   Filed 01/03/17   Page 3 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00010-HRL   Document 1   Filed 01/03/17   Page 4 of 5

Case 5:17-cv-00010-HRL   Document 1   Filed 01/03/17   Page 5 of 5
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

CHARLES L. STEVENSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL 

MEDICAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00336-SI 

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Defendants have filed an ex parte request for an extension of the deadline to file a 

dispositive motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration of 

attorney Kelly Collins, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket No. 14.) The court now sets the 

following new briefing schedule for dispositive motions: Defendants must file and serve their

dispositive motion no later than April 13, 2018. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel 

his opposition to the dispositive motion no later than May 11, 2018. Defendants must file and 

serve their reply brief (if any) no later than May 25, 2018.

Defendants are reminded that any motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by 

a Rand notice in a separate document at the time they file their motion for summary judgment. 

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th 

Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6873** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. TERRY L. DOWDELL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00107

- NKM

- 1 )

Submitted : October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Terry L. Dowdell, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell ’s filing as a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court’s denial of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action from the Government “ only if [it] owes [the movant ] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer , 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)
. Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“ [T] he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of impri sonmen t . . . after considering the [relevant] factors.

. . . ”); United States v. Ellis , 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 2008) ( noting that consideration for sentencing relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is “ a matter of discretion for the Bureau [of Prisons] ”). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of relief and deny as moot Dowdell’s motion to expedite

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRM ED
Exhibit
10.52


 


	
  

  	
  Pharsight
  Corporation

  800 West El Camino Real, Suite 200

  Mountain View, CA 
  94040

  Phone: (650) 314-3800

  Fax: (650) 314-3810

  



 


June
16, 2003


 


VIA HAND DELIVERY


 


Charles K. Faas


Pharsight Corporation


 


Dear Charlie:


 


As I have discussed with you,
Pharsight Corporation (the “Company”) in conjunction with Execustaff, Inc., is
pleased to offer you the additional stock option grant set forth in this
letter.


 


Stock Options


 


On April 24, 2003, the
Company’s Compensation Committee approved an additional stock option grant to
you, of one hundred thousand (100,000) shares of the Company’s common stock
with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of such shares on the
date of grant, in accordance with the terms of the Company’s 2000 Equity Incentive
Plan. Such options will vest over a four (4) year period as follows: 25% will
vest on the first anniversary date of grant and the remainder will vest in
equal monthly installments thereafter until fully vested (“Vesting Schedule”).  However, upon a Change of Control (as
defined in the Company’s 2000 Equity Incentive Plan), the Vesting Schedule will
accelerate by one (1) year (“Accelerated Vesting”).  Accelerated Vesting will immediately vest upon a Change of Control,
the number of options equal to the amount, which would have vested one year
from the occurrence of such event. 
Accelerated Vesting described herein will supplement, but not supersede
section 12(c) of the Company’s 2000 Equity Incentive Plan as amended and
restated.


 


Miscellaneous


 


This letter sets forth
and forms the complete and exclusive statement concerning your additional stock
option grant and this letter supersedes any other agreements or promises made
to you by anyone, whether oral or written, concerning the subject matter set
forth in this letter.


 


We are very pleased to
offer you this additional stock option grant.


 


Sincerely,


PHARSIGHT CORPORATION


 


 


	
  /s/ Shawn M. O’Connor

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Shawn M. O’Connor

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President & Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Charles Faas

  	
   

  	
  June 27, 2003

  	
   

  
	
  Charles Faas

  	
   

  	
  Date

  	
   

  



 


1
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 113 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 113

Authorizing the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees 
                             of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2021

   Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Blunt) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees 
                             of the Senate.

    Resolved, That a collection of the rules of the committees of the 
Senate, together with related materials, be printed as a Senate 
document, and that there be printed 250 additional copies of such 
document for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### Nolie Deal SAMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

Nos. 03-6694, 03-7545.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 29, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

*928Nolie Deal Sampson, Appellant pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Nolie Deal Sampson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sampson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. Sampson’s motions to supplement the record and to remand are denied. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            228,055
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      18,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  246,256
<PP&E>                                             33,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    278,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,013,328
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                       (736,196)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      278,632
<SALES>                                             1,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    5,355
<CGS>                                               2,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       2,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  976,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (5,696)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (979,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (979,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (979,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.12)




</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 4, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02198]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 4, 2025 / 
Notices

[[Page 8922]]

CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

[Agency Docket Number: CRCCRRB-2025-0008-N]

Notice of Formal Determination on Records Release

AGENCY: Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board received 201 
pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA) related to four civil rights cold case incidents to which the 
Review Board assigned the unique identifiers 2024-003-032, 2024-003-
036, 2024-003-056, and 2024-003-059. NARA proposed seven (7) 
postponements of disclosure in records related to incident 2024-003-
059. NARA did not propose postponements in the other records. On 
January 24, 2025, the Review Board rejected the proposed postponements 
and determined that all 201 pages of records should be publicly 
disclosed in the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection. By issuing 
this notice, the Review Board complies with section 7(c)(4) of the 
Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 that requires the 
Review Board to publish in the Federal Register its determinations on 
the disclosure or postponement of records in the Collection no more 
than 14 days after the date of its decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephannie Oriabure, Chief of Staff, 
Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board, 1800 F Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20405, (771) 221-0014, [email protected].
    Authority: Pub. L. 115-426, 132 Stat. 5489 (44 U.S.C. 2107).

    Dated: January 30, 2025.
Stephannie Oriabure,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2025-02198 Filed 2-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SY-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 319 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 319

   Expressing support for the designation of July 2021 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2021

 Mr. Johnson submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

                             August 9, 2021

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to with an amended preamble

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for the designation of July 2021 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

Whereas sarcoma is a rare cancer of the bones or connective tissues, such as 
        nerves, muscles, joints, fat, and blood vessels, that can arise nearly 
        anywhere in the body;
Whereas, in the United States--

    (1) about 16,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year;

    (2) approximately 7,000 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and

    (3) about 50,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma at any 1 time;

Whereas, each year, about 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in adults and around 20 
        percent of cancers diagnosed in children are sarcoma;
Whereas more than 70 subtypes of sarcoma have been identified;
Whereas the potential causes of sarcoma are not well understood;
Whereas treatment for sarcoma can include surgery, radiation therapy, or 
        chemotherapy;
Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and
Whereas July 2021 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma 
        Awareness Month--

    (1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and

    (2) to encourage more individuals in the United States to get properly 
diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of July 2021 as 
``National Sarcoma Awareness Month''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of KKR Financial Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Saturnino S. Fanlo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David A. Netjes, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

August 1,
2005

| | /s/SATURNINO S. FANLO                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Saturnino S. Fanlo
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                                        
| | /s/DAVID A. NETJES                                                                                              
| | David A. Netjes
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

55

---



QuickLinks
Rakesh VERMA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0907

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

Rakesh Verma, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AAA Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date: May 31, 2006


/s/ Dennis LaPrairie
------------------------------------
Dennis LaPrairie
Principal Financial Officer