alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rodolfo HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-96

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# L_2018065EN.01004801.xml

| 8.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 65/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 65/48

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/1538 of the European Central Bank of 25 August 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/534 on reporting of supervisory financial information (ECB/2017/25)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 240 of 19 September 2017
  )

On page 20, point 2(b) of Annex I:

for:

| ‘(b) | the following paragraph 3 is added:






  “3. | As an exception to paragraph 2, each NCA may decide that entities referred to in paragraph 2 and established in its Member State report:






  (a) | the information specified in template 9.1 or the information specified in template 9.1.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘(b)

“3.

(a)

the information specified in template 9.1 or the information specified in template 9.1.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014;

| (b) | the information specified in template 11.1 or the information specified in template 11.2 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the information specified in template 11.1 or the information specified in template 11.2 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014;

| (c) | the information specified in template 12.0 or the information specified in template 12.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014”;’, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the information specified in template 12.0 or the information specified in template 12.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014”;’,

read:

| ‘(b) | the following paragraph 4 is added:






  “4. | As an exception to paragraph 2, each NCA may decide that entities referred to in paragraph 2 and established in its Member State report:






  (a) | the information specified in template 9.1 or the information specified in template 9.1.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘(b)

“4.

(a)

the information specified in template 9.1 or the information specified in template 9.1.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014;

| (b) | the information specified in template 11.1 or the information specified in template 11.2 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the information specified in template 11.1 or the information specified in template 11.2 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014;

| (c) | the information specified in template 12.0 or the information specified in template 12.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014”;’. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the information specified in template 12.0 or the information specified in template 12.1 from Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014”;’.

---
David E. FAIRLEIGH, Appellant, v. Vicki Gorman FAIRLEIGH, Appellee.

No. 1D19-1793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Darren
Dierich, Chief Financial 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/ Darren
  R. DierichDarren R.
  DierichChief
  Financial Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a 

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been 

filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge 

assigned to case Schwartz v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-05456-LHK, I find that the more 

recently filed cases that I have marked below are related to the case assigned to me, and such 

cases shall be reassigned to me. 

Additionally, I find that the cases marked as related below are also related to In Re: 

Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 5:16-MD-02752-LHK.

Case Title Related Not Related

16-cv-07154-HRL Amy Vail v. Yahoo!, Inc. x

16-cv-07182-NC Mortensen v. Yahoo! Inc. x

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the 

initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management 

conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the 

dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26 accordingly. 

Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local 

Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to 

govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned 

judge.

Dated: December 21, 2016 By: ________________________

Lucy H. Koh

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 7 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 1
Rodney YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-991

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 13, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32307]



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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Pratt & Lambert United, Inc., Common Stock, $.01 Par 
Value) File No. 1-994

December 27, 1994.
    Pratt & Lambert United, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the American 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex, 
the Security from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex, 
the Security is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''). 
The Security commenced trading on the NYSE at the opening of business 
on December 7, 1994 and concurrently therewith the Security was 
suspended from trading on the Amex.
    In making the decision to withdraw the Security from listing on the 
Amex, the Company considered the direct and indirect costs and expenses 
attendant on maintaining the dual listing of its securities on the NYSE 
and on the Amex. The Company does not see any particular advantage in 
the dual trading of the Security and believes that dual listing would 
fragment the market for the Security.
    Any interested person may, on or before January 18, 1995 submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
exchange and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-32307 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER RE: YAHOO RECENT DATA BREACH DISCLOSURE

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 

ORDER RE: YAHOO RECENT DATA 

BREACH DISCLOSURE

The Court requests that the parties address the impact on the case schedule of the recent 

Yahoo disclosure that approximately 3 billion Yahoo users were affected by the 2013 Yahoo data 

breach. As a result, the Court extends the October 6, 2017 deadline for the filing of the parties' 

Joint Case Management Statement to October 11, 2017.

The Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and their Counsel on February 9, 2017. ECF No. 58. 

Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class Complaint on April 12, 2017. ECF No. 80. The Court 

issued an order granting in part and denying in part Yahoo's motion to dismiss on August 30, 

2017. ECF No. 94. Yahoo's recent disclosure may impact the causes of action alleged in this 

case, which may delay the case schedule. To minimize the delay caused by the timing of Yahoo's 

recent disclosure, Yahoo must disclose to Plaintiffs available information regarding the recent data 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 142 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER RE: YAHOO RECENT DATA BREACH DISCLOSURE

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

breach disclosure by October 6, 2017, so that the Joint Case Management Statement can propose a 

realistic amended case schedule. In addition, Yahoo shall expedite its production of discovery 

regarding the recent data breach disclosure and include a proposal to do so in the October 11, 2017 

Joint Case Management Statement. 

The October 13, 2017 Case Management Conference remains as set. Although the parties 

may appear telephonically, in light of Yahoo's recent disclosure, the Court invites any party who 

wishes to appear in person to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 142 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **756**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. QUINCY LAMONT SALLIEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1 : 10

- cr - 00 2 98

- RDB

- 1 ; 1 :1 3

- cv - 0 1443

- RDB )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Quincy Lamont Salliey , Appellant Pro Se

. Benjamin M. Block , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore , Maryland , for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Quincy Lamont Salliey s eeks to appeal the district court ’ s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the

appea l period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket on August 4, 2014 . The notice of appeal was filed on December 1,
2014

. 1 Because Salliey failed to file a timely notice of appeal

1 In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), an incarcerated inmate’s notice of appeal is deemed “filed” when deposited into the institution’s mail system. To demonstrate timely filing, the notice must either be not arized or sworn to in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (20 12 ). Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Here, Salliey failed to date his notice of appeal or include a certificate of service. The envelope also fails to identify a postmark date or the date Salliey delive red it to prison officials for mailing. Finally, Salliey does not provide the date he filed his notice of appeal in his informal brief. Under these circumstances, we are confined to the date the district court filed the notice of appeal.3 or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2 Although Salliey alleged in his notice of appeal that he filed a motion for reconsideration that is still pending in the district court , this assertion is belied by the record.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00343-CR

IN RE PHILIP CAMERON CARTER

Original Proceeding 

From the 278th District Court

Madison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13,690

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on December 20, 2021, is 

denied. Relator’s Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Petition denied

Motion dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 21, 2021

Do not publish 

[OT06]
1 FTC’S JAN. 28, 2019 UPDATED LIST OF WITNESSES

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870 

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802 

Wesley G. Carson, D.C. Bar No. 1009899 

Elizabeth A. Gillen, Cal. Bar No. 260667 

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S UPDATED LIST OF 

WITNESSES FOR TRIAL DAY 10, 

JANUARY 28, 2019 

Courtroom: 7, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission submits the following updated list of rebuttal 

witnesses it intends to call live and by videotaped or stenographically recorded deposition on 

Monday, January 28, 2019 (Trial Day 10). This list has been updated to re-order the deposition 

witnesses and to indicate that the deposition of Jianxin (Jason) Ding is subject to a sealing Order. 

1. Professor Carl Shapiro, FTC economic expert (live) 

2. Injung Lee, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

3. Yooseok Kim, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

4. Seungho Ahn, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1449 Filed 01/27/19 Page 1 of 2
 2 FTC’S JAN. 28, 2019 UPDATED LIST OF WITNESSES

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

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

5. Jianxin (Jason) Ding, Huawei (by videotaped deposition) (subject to sealing Order, 

ECF No. 1442) (time permitting)* 

6. Richard Blaylock, counsel for ZTE (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

7. John Grubbs, Blackberry (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

8. Nanfen (Nancy) Yu, Huawei (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

9. Jeff Altman, former Qualcomm (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

10. Derek Aberle, former Qualcomm (by videotaped deposition and recorded 

investigational hearing read into the record) (time permitting)* 

* All designated deposition clips are short. The FTC will present the testimony only if time 

permits. 

Dated: January 27, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 /s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici 

J. Alexander Ansaldo 

Joseph R. Baker 

Wesley G. Carson 

Elizabeth A. Gillen 

Daniel Matheson 

Mark J. Woodward 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1449 Filed 01/27/19 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

VICTORIA GREENE,

Petitioner

v.

SOMMER LAW GROUP, P.C.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
January 27, 2009 8K Exhibit 10.13





                                                                       Exhibit 10.13 






10100 Santa Monica Blvd   Suite 430   Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel   (888) 808-4667  Fax   (310) 859-1601

 www.mymedicalrecords.com





August 24, 2006


Mr. Hector V. Barreto

   409 9th Street, S.W. 

   Washington, DC  20416


Dear Mr. Barreto:

This Letter Agreement sets forth the terms under which you agree to act as a marketing and strategic planning advisor for
MyMedicalRecords.com, Inc. ("MMR"), effective on the last date executed below.  As such, you will seek actively strategic
partnerships and alliances with other entities to market MMR's products and services.

Under this Agreement, MMR agrees to compensate you for your services as follows:

(1) $50,000 per year payable monthly commencing the first day of the first month following your acceptance of a position on the Board
of Directors of MMR.

(2)  Commissions in the amount of one percent (1%) of revenue generated directly through your efforts, payable on net cash receipts
received from those clients, quarterly 30 days following the end of each quarter.

Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice.  This Agreement will renew automatically for
successive one year periods unless terminated by either party.  The parties are aware of Mr. Barreto's directorship on the board of MMR and
understand that this relationship is independent of that directorship and that compensation under this Agreement is not consideration for that
directorship.  This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to that state's choice of law doctrine.




	
MyMedicalRecords.com, Inc.


By: /s/ Robert H. Lorsch            8/24/2006

Robert H. Lorsch                    
      Date


Title: CEO

	
Hector V. Barreto


By: /s/ Hector V. Barreto            8/24/2006

Hector V. Barreto                    
      Date