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 

JOHNNY VANCE ALLEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

COUNTY OF SONOMA, a governmental 

entity; SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE, a governmental entity; KYLE 

PETERSON, a person; TRENT HARDEMAN, 

a person; LAWRENCE MATELLI, a person; 

and TWENTY UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE 

COUNTY OF SONOMA AND/OR SONOMA 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO.: 4:17-CV-00448-YGR

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

DENYING TO MOTION TO STRIKE 

 

 

 

The County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, Kyle Peterson, Trent Hardeman and 

Lawrence Matelli (collectively “defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 30, 2017. 

(Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff Allen filed his responsive brief on April 13, 2017. (Dkt. No. 17.) 

Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 20, 2017. (Dkt. No. 20.) 

Defendants further requested that plaintiff’s allegations regarding violation of equal protection be 

stricken. The matter came on for hearing on May 16, 2017. 

Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted on this motion, and the 

hearing held on May 16, 2017, for the reasons stated on the record on May 16, 2017, the Court 

GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and shall file an 
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

amended complaint by June 30, 2017. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot. 

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 17, 2017 _________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
# L_2017314EN.01000101.xml

| 30.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2204

of 17 November 2017

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. — Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 252, 3.8.2017, p. 17.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Brian Andrew VICTORY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-505

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 494 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 494

  Memorializing the unborn by lowering the United States flag to half-
              staff on the 22nd day of January each year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 20, 2022

  Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. 
   Hagerty, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Hawley, and Mr. Rounds) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Memorializing the unborn by lowering the United States flag to half-
              staff on the 22nd day of January each year.

Whereas, on January 22, 1973, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court 
        of the United States ruled that abortion was a right secured by the 
        Constitution; and
Whereas, since that fateful day, over 60,000,000 unborn children have perished: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the recognition of the Day of Tears in the 
        United States on the 22nd day of January each year; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to lower 
        their flags to half-staff to mourn and honor the innocents who 
        have lost their lives to abortion.
                                 <all>
```
Marquis RIDDLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 25 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ju li o R ob ert o F ajard o
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 2 1, 2 01 4 Fil ed : Ap ril 24 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Gua te m al an ci ti zen J u l i o Ro be rto Fajard o pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w o f an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s, whi c h up he ld an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s de ni al ofas y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. Afte r care fu l co ns id erat io n, we fir st co nc lu de 1 th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e de ni al of as y lu m , be cau se th at de ni al was ba se d

on an un ex cu s ed de la y in fil in g th e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 3) (n o co ur t sh al l ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev i e w a n y de te rm in at io n of Att or ne y Gen eral reg ard in g, i nt er al ia , t im e li m it for fil in g a sylum ap pl ic at io n) . W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e de ni al of wi th ho ld in g of rem ov al was su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l evi de nc e on th e reco rd as a who le

. See De Cas tro -Gu ti erre z v. Hol de r, 71 3 F.3 d 37 5, 37 9- 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s ub st an ti al -ev i d e n ce st an da rd fo r de ni al of wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al ); Tay -Ch an v. Hol de r, 69 9 F.3 d 10 7, 11 2- 13 (1 st Ci r. 2 0 1 2) (fo r pu rp os es of wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al , to es ta bl is h cl ear pr ob ab il it y of pe rs ecu ti on ba se d on fam il y

m em be rs hi p, it is no t en ou gh to sh ow th at m ul ti pl e m em

be rs of sa m e fam il y ha d

ne ga ti ve ex pe rie nc es ; rat he r, th os e ex pe rie nc es ha d to ha ve be en cau sa ll y li nk ed to fam il y m em be rs hi p)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Fajard o was al so de ni ed rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e, bu t he 1 do es no t ad dr es s t hi s cl ai m in hi s b rie f. See Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v . Ash cro ft, 3 67 F.3 d 75 1, 75 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p et it io ne r waiv es cl ai m th at is no t m ean i n g fu ll y rai se d in op en in g b rie f).
-2

-
**Exhibit      32.1**
** **

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

|   | (1.) | the                Quarterly Report on 10-QSB of Clear Choice Financial, Inc.. (the                “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (“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. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |   |                                                    |   |                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | **Nationwide                Financial Solutions, Inc.** |
|                              |   |                                                    |
| Date:                May 19, 2006 |   | By:                                                     |   | /s/                Stephen G. Luke                Stephen                G. LukePresident                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                              |   |                                                    |
| Date:                May 19, 2006 |   | By:                                                     |   | /s/                Darren R. Dierich                Darren                R. DierichChief                Financial Officer           |
|                              |   |                                                    |   |                                                                                                                                 |

----
DAVID I. DALBY (SBN: 114750)

ddal by@hinshawlaw.com

2 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

One California Street, 18th Floor

3 San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415-362-6000

4 Facsimile: 415-834-9070

5 Attorneys for Defendant

DIRECT FLOW (ASSIGNMENT FOR

6 THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND)

11

12 J. JASON REYNOLDS, ) Case No.: 4:17-cv-00204- KAW

)

13 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself) STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

and all others similarly ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 situated, )

) [PROPOSED] ORDER

15 vs. )

) Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

16 DIRECT FLOW MEDICAL, INC.; )

DIRECT FLOW (ASSIGNMENT FOR )

17 THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC; ) Complaint Filed: March 27, 2017

DAN LEMAITRE; JOHN DAVID BOYLE;)

18 GORDON BISHOP; PAUL )

LAVIOLETTE; and YUVAL BINUR, )

19 )

Defendants. )) 20

21

22

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), by and through

23

their respective counsel, plaintiff J. JASON REYNOLDS and defendant DIRECT FLOW

24

(ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC ("DFABC") hereby

25

stipulate that this action is dismissed without prejudice as to DFABC only, and that

26

REYNOLDS and DFABC shall each bear their own attorney's fees and costs.

27

28

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:I7-CV-00204-KAW

300043927VI 0998729
IS SO STIPULATED.

2

Dated: June 30, 2017

3

4

5

6

7

8 Dated: June 30, 2017

9

10

11

12

13 Dated: June 30, 2017

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

Is/David Jan Dalby David Ian Dalby

Attorneys for Defendant DIRECT FLOW 

(ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF 

CREDITORS), LLC

GIBBS LAW GROUP

/s/ Steven M Tindall Steven M. Tindall

Attorneys for Plaintiff J. JASON REYNOLDS, 

and THE CLASS

DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES

Is/ John H. Douglas

John H. Douglas

Attorneys for Plaintiff J. JASON REYNOLDS, 

and THE CLASS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of plaintiff J. JASON REYNOLDS and defendant

21

DIRECT FLOW (ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC

22

(DFABC) this action is dismissed without prejudice as to DFABC only, each party to

23

bear their own attorney's fees and costs.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED

25

Dated: July 3, 2017

26 MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE

27 DISTRICT COURT

28 2

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00204-KAW
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT FINBAR BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PEACEHEALTH ST JOSEPH’S 

HOSPITAL; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35763 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00626-JCC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Robert Finbar Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing as time-barred his action alleging federal and state law claims arising 

out of his wife’s death. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35763 

on the basis of the applicable statutes of limitations. Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. 

Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). 

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action as barred by the 

applicable statutes of limitations. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.350(3) (statute of 

limitations for injuries resulting from health care is three years from act or 

omission or one year from the date of actual knowledge of an act of fraud or 

concealment); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.

1991) (statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in Washington state is 

three years from the date on which the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the 

injury that is the basis of the claims).

The district court did not err by implicitly denying Brown’s partial motion 

for summary judgment because it was moot.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Brown’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 44) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA MARGULIES,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00280-VC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se civil action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against California Appellate Court Justice Sandra L. Margulies. Bonilla also 

moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Bonilla has been disqualified from proceeding in 

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, No. 

C 11-3180 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Dawson, No. C 13-0951 CW (PR). 

The allegations in this complaint do not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the 

time of filing. Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 

Moreover, even if the IFP application were granted, his lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

This Order terminates docket number 2.

The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

January 31, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00280-VC Document 4 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of Tagalder Global Investment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Chun Ka Tsun, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Chun Ka TsunChun Ka Tsun, Chief Executive Officer May 8, 2007
Exhibit 32.1
     In connection with the Annual Report of P.F. Chang’s on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Rick L. Federico, ChiefExecutive Officer of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (the “Registrant”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Registrant.    /s/ RICHARD L. FEDERICO  *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*March15, 2004
Eugene HARRIS, Sr., Appellant, v. Ramona MIMS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2904

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

Eugene Harris, Sr., Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*1131We affirm the order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve the injunction, without prejudice to Appellant's ability to file a subsequent motion in the lower court asserting the requisite changed circumstances based on Appellee's death.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and SASSO, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED 

TERMINAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-07014-VC 

ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS

Both sides have made numerous evidentiary objections to the materials submitted at trial. 

This order disposes of those objections:

 All objections to testimony or documents not cited in the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law filed May 15, 2018 are denied as moot. 

 All materials that the relevant Oakland officials have declared were received by 

the City on or before June 27, 2016 are deemed part of the record, and the 

plaintiff's objection to the contrary is overruled. See Dkt. No. 222.

 All of the plaintiff's remaining objections to materials cited in the Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law are denied as moot.

 The defendants make a blanket objection to the consideration of documents and 

testimony that were not part of the record before the City Council in connection 

with its consideration of the resolution and ordinance at issue in this case. This 

objection is overruled. As explained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law, materials not part of the City Council record are less central to the 

adjudication of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, but they remain relevant to
2

the extent they assist the Court in its assessment of the record before the City 

Council.

 The defendants make hearsay objections to the use of two studies relating to the 

AP-42 guidance by one of the plaintiff's experts. These objections are overruled 

because experts may use and rely on hearsay to form their opinions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cass Information Systems, Inc. (“the
Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric H.
Brunngraber, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
      Eric H. BrunngraberEric
      H. BrunngraberPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)August
      5, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Cass Information Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Cass Information Systems,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.