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

JAMES ALVIN DULANEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00664-EJD (RMI)

REPORT OF PRO SE PRISONER

EARLY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING

A settlement conference was held on May 31, 2018, and the results of that proceeding are 

indicated below:

(1) The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives participated in the 

proceeding, and each possessed the requisite settlement authority:

( X ) Plaintiff, James Alvin Dulaney, Pro Se.

( ) Warden or warden’s representative

( X ) Office of the California Attorney General, Robert Wayne Henkels.

( ) Other: 

(2) The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives did not appear:

_____________________________________________________________________

(3) The outcome of the proceeding was:

( X ) The case has been completely settled. Settlement documents were executed in 

court.

( ) The case has been partially resolved and counsel for defendants shall file a joint 

stipulation regarding those claims which have been resolved. The issues outlined on the sheet 

attached remain for this Court to resolve.
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

( ) The parties are unable to reach an agreement at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/1/2018

ROBERT M ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge
3

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

JAMES ALVIN DULANEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00664-EJD (RMI)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 1, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

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

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

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

James Alvin Dulaney ID: P-40910

B4-214 Pelican Bay State Prison

PO Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532 

Dated: June 1, 2018

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Gloria Knudson, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable ROBERT M ILLMAN
Ria Nyla FRANCIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.14


 





 


December 26, 2008


 


Michael
Barrow


42311
Gold Cup Lane


Murrieta,
California 92562


 


Dear
Mike:


 


Reference
is made to the (change-in-control) Severance Agreement entered into by and
between you and International Rectifier Corporation (the “Severance
Agreement”).


 


The
purpose of this letter is to supplement the terms of the Severance Agreement to
include terms and conditions designed to make any payments pursuant to the
Severance Agreement compliant with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (including the Treasury Regulations and other published
guidance related thereto) (“Section 409A”).


 


Your
Severance Agreement is hereby modified as follows; capitalized terms used but
not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Severance
Agreement:


 


1.             Severance.  Subject to the conditions of payment
described in Section 10 relating to specified employees, any Cash
Severance payable pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Severance Agreement
shall be paid in a cash lump sum on the 60th day following your “separation from service,”
provided you have promptly executed and delivered (and not revoked) a Release
Agreement within 50 days of your termination; provided, however,
that if you fail to execute and deliver such release, or you revoke such
release, you shall not be paid any Cash Severance pursuant to the Severance
Agreement.  For this purpose, a “separation
from service” shall be defined within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(h)(1),
without regard to the optional alternative definitions available thereunder.


 


Except
as modified hereby, your Severance Agreement remains unmodified.  Please indicate your agreement with the
foregoing by signing where indicated below.


 


Regards,


 


	
  INTERNATIONAL
  RECTIFIER CORPORATION

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
  Its:
   Assistant Secretary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged
  and agreed:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Michael
  Barrow

  	
   

  
	
  Date:
| 1. |    | Registration Statement No. 333-154731 on Form S-3 of SinoHub, Inc., as most recently amended by Post Effective Amendment No. 1.;                                                   |
|----|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. |    | Registration Statement No. 333-162767 on Form S-3 of SinoHub, Inc.;                                                                                                                     |
| 3. |    | Registration Statement No. 333-165360 on Form S-3 of  SinoHub, Inc.;                                                                                                               |
| 4. |    | Registration Statement No. 333-171540 on Form S-3 of SinoHub, Inc.; and                                                                                                                 |
| 5. |    | Registration Statement No. 333-160808 on Form S-8 pertaining to the SinoHub, Inc. Amended and Restated 2008 Stock Plan and the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of SinoHub International, Inc. |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD DUANE DARGAN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. 

(1:11-cr-00578-CCB-1; 1:15-cv-01351-CCB)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Duane Dargan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Walter Sippel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Duane Dargan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on 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 reasonable 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 procedural 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 the record and conclude that 

Dargan 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 legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 724 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 724

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the historic definition of a 
   recession is 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2022

  Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, and Ms. Lummis) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the historic definition of a 
   recession is 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth.

Whereas, globally, the most commonly used and widely accepted definition of 
        recession is 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth;
Whereas most of the recessions in the United States identified by the National 
        Bureau of Economic Research have consisted of 2 negative quarters of 
        gross domestic product growth and in each of the last 10 instances in 
        which there have been 2 or more such quarters, a recession was 
        officially declared;
Whereas use of the historic definition of a recession by the Federal Government 
        has been important for purposes of economic study and analysis, historic 
        comparisons, and policy making: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
Government should continue to use the historic definition of a 
recession.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Nigel Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Arch Management Services Inc.;

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. I am 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) Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition Rules
contained in SEC Release No. 33-8238;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants 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; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants 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 registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 11, 2005


By:  /s/  Nigel Johnson
Nigel Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
Secretary, and a member of the Board of Directors
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000709005
<NAME> NOBLE ROMAN'S, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         223,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,051,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    977,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,793,043
<PP&E>                                      13,228,153
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,971,356)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,388,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,566,259
<BONDS>                                     12,437,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,458,431
<OTHER-SE>                                   (837,431)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,388,227
<SALES>                                      8,715,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,886,190
<CGS>                                        1,625,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,130,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               722,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             358,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,809
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,809
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0405 

LT Case No. 16-2021-CF-003597-AXXX 

_____________________________ 

JERRY GALLION,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

R. Anthony Salem, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

March 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, JAY, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
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 

DECLARATION OF TODD MADDEROM IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

Case No. 5:17-md-00220-LHK-NMC 

- 1 - 

Daniel J. Stephenson (SBN 270722)

K&L GATES LLP 

10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 

Eighth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: (310) 552 5000 

Facsimile: (310) 552 5001 

Email: dan.stephenson@klgates.com 

Attorney for Lenovo (United States), Inc. and 

Motorola Mobility LLC 

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-NMC 

DECLARATION OF TODD MADDEROM 

IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

I, Todd Madderom, Director of Procurement at Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), do 

hereby declare under oath as follows based upon my knowledge, information, and belief: 

1. I understand that the Plaintiff the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Defendant 

Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”) (together, the “Parties”) intend to file the Expert Report of Carl 

Shapiro on December 27, 2018 (the “Shapiro Report”), and that portions of the Shapiro Report 

contain non-public, confidential, and highly sensitive business and commercial information of 

Motorola, the disclosure of which would put Motorola at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the 

marketplace. 

2. Consistent with the Administrative Motion to Seal filed by the Parties (the 

“Administrative Motion to Seal”), Motorola requests that the Court maintain certain limited portions 

of the Shapiro Report under seal. Motorola is seeking to seal only those limited portions that are 

truly confidential in nature and it is not seeking to seal all of the portions identified by the Parties – as 

noted below. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1057 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1057 Filed 12/31/18 Page 2 of 3
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 

DECLARATION OF TODD MADDEROM IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

Case No. 5:17-md-00220-LHK-NMC 

- 3 - 

ATTESTATION 

 I, Daniel J. Stephenson, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such 

filing to all registered counsel and, in compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), hereby attest that all 

signatories concur with this filing. 

 /s/ Daniel J. Stephenson 

Dated: December 31, 2018 Daniel J. Stephenson 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1057 Filed 12/31/18 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 91

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 225-16 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7878

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH LEE FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-8; 1:12-cv-00315-MR)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on 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 reasonable 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 procedural 

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 the record and conclude 

that Foster 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 legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and 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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                September 22, 2006 | By:                 */s/*Paul                Mann                                                                           |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Paul                Mann                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                                    | President,Chief                Executive Officer andChief Financial                Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |

----