alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIS

OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

V.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

CLASS ACTION

262018

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Patrick S. Sweeney, Pro Se

2672 Mutchler Road

Telephone: (424)-488-4383

Madison, WI 53711

patrickshanesweeney@gmail.com

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 95 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 95 Filed 11/26/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 95 Filed 11/26/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 95 Filed 11/26/18 Page 4 of 5
17-cv-00849-VC Document 95 Filed 11/26/18 Pag
U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Office of Regulatory Affairs

Rockville, MD 20857

January 11, 2024

To Whom it May Concern:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public safety alert on November 21, 2023, after 

receiving multiple reports of serious medical injuries related to “Neptune’s Fix.” Neptune’s Fix is labeled 

to contain the dangerous and addictive ingredient tianeptine. Tianeptine is not approved for any medical 

use in the United States and is often unlawfully labeled or sold as a dietary supplement. FDA continues to 

receive reports of consumers who have suffered seizures, loss of consciousness or other adverse health 

events after ingesting this product. We are reaching out because most consumers report purchasing this 

product at local gas stations or convenience stores across the country.

FDA is urging all retailers to STOP selling Neptune’s Fix and any tianeptine-containing products. We are 

asking that trade associations please share the message above and information below to keep 

consumers safe: 

• FDA warns consumers not to purchase or use Neptune’s Fix or any tianeptine product due to 

serious risks: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-warns-consumers-notpurchase-or-use-neptunes-fix-or-any-tianeptine-product-due-serious-risks

• Tianeptine Products Linked to Serious Harm, Overdoses, Death: 

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/tianeptine-products-linked-serious-harmoverdoses-death

Further, FDA is actively investigating new reports in conjunction with local and state health departments. 

We are also aware that Neptune’s Fix and other tianeptine-containing products are sold illegally online 

and in other retail locations. At least twelve states have banned the sale of tianeptine. 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Office of Regulatory Affairs

Rockville, MD 20857

According to the CDC, the clinical effects of tianeptine abuse and withdrawal can mimic opioid 

toxicity/withdrawal.

Consumers and retailers should report adverse events or side effects related to the use of Neptune’s Fix 

and similar products to FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

• Complete and submit the report online at MedWatch Online Voluntary Reporting Form, or;

• Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

Please respond to this email for any additional information or clarification.

Sincerely,

Health Fraud Branch

Office of Regulatory Affairs

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDAAdvisory@fda.hhs.gov
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11458]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

    Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.
    Summary of Proposal(s):

(1) Collection title: Annual Earnings Monitoring
(2) Form(s) submitted: RRB Form G-19 (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V)
(3) OMB Number: 3220-0073
(4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: June 30, 1995
(5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection
(6) Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit
(7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,700
(8) Total annual responses: 2,700
(9) Total annual reporting hours: 450
(10) Collection description: The report obtains information about a 
survivor annuitant's employment and earnings. Under the RRA, an annuity 
can be reduced or not paid, depending on the amount of earnings and 
type of work performed.

    Additional Information or Comments: Copies of the form and 
supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency 
clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information 
collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement 
Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB 
reviewer, Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11458 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,424,700
<SECURITIES>                                90,750,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,650,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,102,700
<PP&E>                                       5,049,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             266,764,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,987,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,893,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               266,764,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,955,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,814,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               129,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,154,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,168,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   342,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   826,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 11, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00326

- CR

Leonard CHARGUALAF

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 1243

- CR

- A

Honorable William D. Old III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this Anders case, Appellant only recently received a copy of this court’s April 5, 2021

order granting his last request for extension of time

. He now requests additional time to submit

his brief following his recent receipt of this court’s last order.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s pro se response is due on July 25 , 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147157) pertaining to the Zep Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan, Zep Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Zep Inc.
Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, Zep Inc. Supplemental Deferred Savings Plan, and Zep Inc. 401(k) Plan, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-163944) pertaining to the registration of $200,000,000 of common stock, preferred stock, preferred stock
purchase rights, depository shares, debt securities, warrants, purchase contracts and units of Zep Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our
reports dated November 8, 2010, with respect to the consolidated and combined financial statements and schedule of Zep Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Zep Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended August 31, 2010.

/s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia

November 8,
2010
Joseph BUTLER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2711

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* §§ 775.084(4)(c)(1), 812.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997) ; *Davis v. State*, 235 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2018) ; *Carbajal v. State*, 75 So.3d 258 (Fla. 2011) ; *State v. King*, 426 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1982) ; *Steward v. State*, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Desmond v. State*, 576 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ; *McMillan v. State*, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; *Hart v. State*, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ; *Luchak v. State*, 606 So.2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 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 Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: May 8, 2006 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE

CORLEY’S ORDER RE DUE

DILIGENCE REPORT

A prior order set an expedited briefing schedule for defendant Otto Trucking LLC’s

motion for relief from Judge Corley’s order granting plaintiff Waymo LLC’s motion to compel

production (Dkt. No. 573). This order applies that same briefing schedule to subsequent

motions for the same relief filed by defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC

(Dkt. No. 575), and by non-party Anthony Levandowski (Dkt. No. 574). Waymo may file a

consolidated response brief addressing all three motions and not to exceed FIFTEEN pages in

length by JUNE 12 AT NOON. Each movant may reply, with each reply supporting only their

own motion and not to exceed THREE PAGES in length, by JUNE 13 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 578 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-6398.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 20, 2004.

Richard George Brydges, Brydges, Mahan, O’Brien & Frucci, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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:

Patrick Harrington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 Harrington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Harrington’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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*
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

215 

CA 14-01104 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

KEITH HAGENBUCH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VICTORIA WOODS HOA, INC., CROFTON 

ASSOCIATES, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (JENNIFER B. TAROLLI OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

E. MICHAEL COOK, P.C., ROCHESTER (MICHAEL STEINBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered November 21, 2012 in a

personal injury action. The judgment and order, among other things,

denied the motion of defendants-appellants for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment and order so appealed from

is unanimously modified on the law by granting in part the motion of

defendants-appellants and dismissing the complaint against them to the

extent that the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars,

alleges that they created or had actual notice of the allegedly

dangerous condition, and as modified the judgment and order is

affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on a patch of

ice at a complex owned by Victoria Woods HOA, Inc. and managed by

Crofton Associates, Inc. (defendants). Supreme Court erred in denying

that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the

complaint to the extent that the complaint, as amplified by the bill

of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent because they

created or had actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, and

we therefore modify the judgment and order accordingly. Defendants

met their initial burden with respect thereto (see generally Sweeney v

Lopez, 16 AD3d 1174, 1175), and plaintiff did not oppose the motion to

that extent, thus implicitly conceding that defendants were entitled

to summary judgment to that extent (see Adams v Autumn Thoughts, 298

AD2d 945, 946). 

The court properly denied the motion, however, to the extent that
-2- 215 

CA 14-01104 

the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that

defendants were negligent based on their constructive notice of the

allegedly dangerous condition. Defendants failed to meet their

initial burden of establishing that the ice was not visible and

apparent, or “that the ice formed so close in time to the accident

that they could not reasonably have been expected to notice and remedy

the condition” (Jordan v Musinger, 197 AD2d 889, 890; see Gwitt v

Denny’s, Inc., 92 AD3d 1231, 1231-1232; Kimpland v Camillus Mall

Assoc., L.P., 37 AD3d 1128, 1128-1129). 

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Craig A. McCollam, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofDionex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 

 

 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Boardof Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004   /s/ Craig A. McCollam   Craig A. McCollam  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.11
                                      Agreed to February 2, 2023        

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-three

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, at 9 p.m., for the 
purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United 
States shall be pleased to make to them.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as AdoptedPursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arbor EnTechCorporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on thedate hereof (the “Report”), Mark Shefts, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)                                  TheReport for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2004, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(4)                                  Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| March 15, 2004 | s/Mark Shefts           |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | Mark Shefts             |
|           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----