alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

A

C

FR

a.m

16,

Pla

this

Sho

the

dis

Da

ALTURA ST

v. 

ITY AND C

RANCISCO

This ca

m. Plaintiff d

This is 

, 2017, Plain

aintiff also d

Plaintif

s case for fai

ow Cause sh

e Court shall 

smissal will “

IT IS S

ated: May 19

. MICHAEL

Plaintiff, 

COUNTY OF

O, et al., 

Defendants

ase was sched

did not appe

not the first 

ntiff did not a

id not file a 

ff is HEREB

ilure to pros

hall be due b

dismiss this

“operate[] as

SO ORDER

9, 2017 

UNITED

NORTHER

L EWERS, 

F SAN 

s. 

duled for a c

ar for that he

time Plainti

appear for a 

case manage

Y ORDERE

ecute. See F

by May 30, 2

s case pursua

s an adjudica

RED. 

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

case manage

earing, and t

ff has failed

scheduled A

ement statem

ED TO SHO

Fed. R. Civ. 

2017. If Plai

ant to Rule 4

ation on the 

___

JEF

Un

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

ORDER T

SHOULD 

FAILURE

ement confer

the Court co

d to appear fo

ADR telecon

ment. 

OW CAUSE 

P. 41(b). Pl

intiff fails to

41(b), and Pl

merits.” Fe

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

COURT 

IFORNIA 

17-cv-00592

TO SHOW C

NOT BE D

E TO PROS

rence on Ma

ontinued the 

or a schedule

nference. (Se

why the Cou

laintiff’s resp

o file a timely

laintiff is her

ed. R. Civ. P

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

2-JSW 

CAUSE WH

DISMISSED

ECUTE 

ay 19, 2017, 

matter to Ju

ed proceedin

ee Dkt. No. 

urt should no

ponse to this

y response b

reby advised

. 41(b). 

__________

ge 

HY CASE 

D FOR 

at 11:00 

une 9, 2017. 

ng. On May

17.) 

ot dismiss 

s Order to 

by that date, 

d that such a

________ 

y

a
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lawrence Butler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Alpha Technologies Group, 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. The registrant's other certifying officer 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) (Intentionally left Blank)

c) 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; and

d) 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 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

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; and

b) 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.



/s/ Lawrence Butler
-------------------
Lawrence Butler
Chief Executive Officer
September 10, 2003
In re Leo Henry ALBERTSON, Jr., petitioner.

No. 12M118.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
Samuel Arturo ACOSTA-RUIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-6908.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy BROWN

No. 2018-K-0627

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant the writ for the following reasons:

*1267I would grant this writ for the reasons set forth in the trial court's PER CURIAM and for the reasons assigned in Judge Love's dissent.

Additionally, I find the appellate court employed the wrong standard of review, disregarded the mandate of La.Code Crim.P. art. 736 relative to service requirements, and denied the due process notice requirements afforded under our federal and state constitutions.
Mario S. LEVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-635.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report of Carbon Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Derek
McLeish, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial 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 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.





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





This
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.








April 14,
2009




/s/ Derek
McLeish





Derek
McLeish


Chief
Executive Officer and


Acting
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer0
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT

**MCKESSON CORPORATIO** N

**v.**

**GREGORY S. CAMPBELL, WAYFARER AVIATION, INC. F/K/A JDA ACQUISITION**  **COMPANY, INC., ARCADIA AVIATION, ARCADIA AVIATION, LLC, ARCADIA**  **AVIATION, LTD., ARCADIA AVIATION INVESTORS, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION**  **MANAGERS, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION IAD, LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION MSV,**  **LLC, ARCADIA AVIATION PHF, LLC ARCADIA AVIATION WEY, LLC** 

PETITION **OF: GREGORY S. CAMPBELL :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 80 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 4th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**

DENIED

**.**
**Justices Donohue and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision**

**of this matter.**
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

ANTONIO GARCIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING 

COMPANY LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00123-JST 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST IN PART

Re: ECF No. 87

The Court, having considered the Parties’ Stipulation for Leave to File a First Amended

Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Stipulation”), and finding good cause appearing, hereby

ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Class Action 

Complaint in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Stipulation.

2. The First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint must be filed as a separate 

docket entry no later than May 8, 2019. It will be deemed served upon filing on the Court’s 

docket.

3. Defendants’ obligation to file an answer to the First Amended Consolidated Class 

Action Complaint is stayed pending the Preliminary Approval hearing and Final Fairness/Final 

Approval Hearing, and will be mooted by Final Approval of this Agreement and entry of the Final 

Approval Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge
**Exhibit 34.4**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board ofDirectors 

BancTec, Inc. 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that BancTec, Inc. (“theCompany”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing services including asset-backed securitiestransactions involving credit card receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orwere not required to be registered where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period (“the Platform”) as of and for the year ended November 30, 2009. The Company has determined that the remainder of theservicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended November 30, 2009. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourexamination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria for the period covered by the report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed todetect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that BancTec, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria, as described within Management’s Report, as of and for the year endedNovember 30, 2009 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 25, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-201   -      -CV

IN RE InN rReE RuUsSsSeElLlL JaAyY ReEgGeErR and Randal Franklin Caraway	RELATORS

aAnNdD RaAnNdDaAlL FrRaAnNkKlLiInN CaArRaAwWaAyY

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL  B:    GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  June 19, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11247]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5204-3]


Common Sense Initiative Council, Computers and Electronics Sector 
Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Common Sense Initiative Computers and Electronics Sector 
Subcommittee, notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency established the Common 
Sense Initiative Council (CSIC) on October 17, 1994, to provide 
independent advice and counsel to EPA on environmental issues 
associated with the computers and electronics industry. The charter was 
authorized through October 17, 1996, under regulations established by 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Computers and 
Electronics Subcommittee (CSIC-CES) operates as a subcommittee of the 
CSIC.

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby given that the CSI-CES 
Subcommittee will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, May 31, from 8:30 
a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, June 1, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., at the 
Holiday Inn, Financial District/Chinatown, 750 Kearny Street, San 
Francisco, California 94108-1887. Seating will be available on a first-
come, first-served basis.
    The meeting will include breakout sessions for subcommittee 
workgroups (Reporting and Information Access; Promoting Pollution 
Prevention, Recycling and Product Stewardship; and Integrated and 
Sustainable Alternative Strategies for Electronics), reports to the 
full subcommittee from those workgroups, and presentations to the full 
subcommittee on other topics of interest. Opportunity for public 
comment on major issues under discussion will be provided at intervals 
throughout the meeting.

INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the above 
noted topics will be publicly available at the meeting. Thereafter, 
these documents, together with the CSI-CES meeting minutes, will be 
available for public inspection in room 2417M of EPA Headquarters, 401 
M Street, SW, Washington, D.C., phone (202) 260-7417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning this meeting of the CSI-
CES, please contact Dave Jones, Region 9, US EPA, (415) 744-2266, FAX 
(415) 744-2180, or by mail at Region 9, US EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105; Gina Bushong, US EPA, (202) 260-3797; or Mark 
Mahoney, Region 1, US EPA, (617) 565-1155.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Gina Bushong,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-11247 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Christopher A. BERMAN, petitioner v. Penny K. EVERY, et al.

No. 12-669.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jason Weber, Chief Executive Officer of Alianza Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Amended Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

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





Date: May 19, 2017





/s/  Jason Weber

Jason Weber,

President and Chief Executive Officer
John Dabney TAYLOR, DOC #T69234, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-642

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR NET INCOME PER SHARE)


                                                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30,
                                               --------------------
                                                 2003       2002
                                               ---------  ---------
<S>                                            <C>        <C>
Net income                                     $  20,260  $  21,022
Less:  Preferred stock dividends                      82         82
                                               ---------  ---------
Net income applicable to common stock          $  20,178  $  20,940

Weighted average common shares outstanding
  - basic and diluted                            909,224    921,226

Net income per common share-basic and diluted  $   22.19  $   22.73
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
A99A2067.

#### WARE v. RUTLEDGE et al.

(523 SE2d 411)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendants-appellees Albert Rutledge, Frances Rutledge and Alan Lee Rutledge are the owners of certain real property in Chattooga County adjacent to the southern and western boundary lines of real property owned by plaintiff-appellant Paul Ware. Ware initiated this action as a claim for damages, alleging defendants intentionally trespassed by bushhogging plaintiffs planted pine trees, by constructing a fence on plaintiffs land, and by removing surveying stakes and monuments. Defendants denied the material allegations and counterclaimed, contending it was plaintiff who trespassed by planting pine trees on defendants’ land and by removing defendants’ surveying stakes. The precise locations of the boundary lines and of an easement in favor of plaintiff were tried before a jury which returned special verdicts in favor of defendants, based upon a 1997 plat of the survey performed by defendants’ expert, K. C. Campbell. Plaintiff Ware’s motion for new trial was denied, and this appeal followed. In two related enumerations of error, Ware contends the 1997 Campbell survey and plat do not constitute competent evidence because they are contradicted by the property description and common boundary as established in a 1955 plat performed by the county surveyor, and so the verdict is without evidentiary support. *Held:*

We affirm. The 1955 Scoggins plat is not presumptive evidence, *356and the Campbell survey was performed following the description of the original conveyance cum reservation from a common grantor. Thus, the Campbell survey was admissible evidence and was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Decided October 14, 1999.

*Edward F. Danowitz, Jr.,*for appellant.

*H. Robert Hannah III,*for appellees.

Surveys or plats of land within his county, made by the county surveyor *under order of court,*stating the contents, courses, and distances of any land surveyed by him are presumptive evidence of the facts set out therein. OCGA § 36-7-12; *McClung v. Schulte,*214 Ga. 426, 428 (105 SE2d 225). The February 1955 Scoggins plat was prepared by J. B. Stephenson, the county surveyor in 1955. But nowhere is it shown that the 1955 Scoggins plat was prepared under court order. Since the Scoggins plat was not prepared by the county surveyor under court order, it was not presumptive evidence of the facts shown therein. *Sutton v. City of Cordele,*230 Ga. 681, 683 (5) (198 SE2d 856). Ware’s contention that the 1997 Campbell survey is incompetent evidence to contradict the Scoggins plat is without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J, and Phipps, J, concur.*