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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00134-VKD 

*SEALED*

ORDER TO UNSEAL AND SERVE 

COMPLAINTS

The United States and the State of California have declined to intervene in this action 

pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 § U.S.C. 3703(b)(4)(B), and the California False Claims Act, 

Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651 et seq. Dkt. Nos. 27, 28. Accordingly, the Court orders that the 

complaints (Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 26) be unsealed. The relator shall serve the complaints upon 

defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Defendants shall have 20 days to 

respond after the relator effects service.

All other contents of this Court’s file in this action remain under seal and shall not be made 

public or served upon the defendants unless and until the Court orders otherwise, except for this 

order, the United States’ Notice of Election to Decline Intervention (Dkt. No. 27), and the State of 

California’s Notice of Election to Decline Intervention (Dkt. No. 28), which the relator will serve 

upon the defendants only after the service of the complaints. The seal shall be lifted as to all other 

matters filed or occurring in this action after the date of this order, except as provided in Civil 

Local Rule 79-5.

The relator shall provide copies of all pleadings filed in the action and copies of all 

deposition transcripts to the United States and the State of California at those parties’ expense 

pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3) and Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(f)(1). The relator shall also 
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

provide copies of all Court orders and notices of appeal on the United States and the State of 

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge
Leveling the playing field across domestic and foreign inspections . . .

Lessons Learned from a Six-month Test Program

Implementing FDASIA Section 706: A six-month test reveals advantages of investigators

requesting inspectional records in advance of drug establishment inspections1

Section 706 of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) allows FDA to request records in advance or

in lieu of on-site drug establishment inspections. Congress enacted this provision to improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of inspections, given the increasing globalization of drug production. Along

with other FDASIA provisions, Section 706 could “level the playing field” by allowing FDA to review records

ahead of time and take a more risk-based approach to conducting both domestic and foreign 

inspections. Recognizing this as a useful and potentially broad authority, FDA sought to carefully

implement Section 706 to ensure that its procedure for requesting records, including the scope and timing

of the information request, was sound. Below are some key findings from a six-month test program led by

FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). Record requests were sent in advance of 104 foreign CGMPsurveillance2 human and animal drug inspections.3 All of the inspections included were already on FDA’s

work plan, and no new inspections were created as a result of this six-month program.

Some Key Study Findings Regarding Drug Manufacturers

• The six types of records requested of all establishments in advance of inspection (see chart below)

reflect commonly requested documents typically reviewed on the first day of an on-site inspection.

• All records were provided to FDA for most inspections in a timely manner and with high accuracy.

• In general, establishments understood the request and FDA received only a handful of questions

asking for clarifications or time extensions. The request gave establishments a better sense ahead

of time of the type of information FDA may focus on during the inspection.

• Reviewing records ahead of time allowed investigators to focus site inspections on more high-risk

areas. This facilitated the identification of significant issues for the establishment to address in order

to protect consumers/patients.

• Investigators used received records and rated them as useful in planning most inspections.

• FDA is using the findings to inform future implementation of Section 706 for drug inspections.

Note: Because of rounding, column totals may not add to exactly 100%.

1 Questions about this document? Email FDASIAImplementationORA@fda.hhs.gov 

2 CGMP = Current Good Manufacturing Practice

3 While findings about the request process (e.g., on timeliness and completeness of records received) were based on all 104

inspections, findings from the survey data from FDA investigators were based on 67 of those inspections. For example, in the chart

above on the usefulness of requested records for inspection planning, the findings reflect survey feedback from 67 establishments

(vs. 43 control establishments during a three-month “control period” in which no records were requested in advance of inspection).
United State Securities and Exchange Commission Edgar Filing


Exhibit 10.1




INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY

Summary of Named Executive Officer and Director Compensation Arrangements

Exhibit to Form 10Q for period ended December 31, 2008




Executive Officers

In addition to the annual base salaries noted in the table below, compensation arrangements for our executive officers include benefits paid under any applicable employment contracts, other IGT Plans for Management Bonus (including Cash Sharing), Stock Incentives, Profit Sharing, and Deferred Compensation as more fully described in exhibits to our annual report on Form 10-K or interim quarterly Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.  These individuals also receive certain perquisites as explained in our annual proxy statement.  Except for employment contracts that are on file with the SEC, these are at-will employment arrangements.




					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Base


	Name

	 
	Title

	 
	Salary (1)


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Thomas J. Matthews

	 
	President, Chief Executive Officer

	 
	$ 840,000 


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Patrick Cavanaugh

	 
	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

	 
	$ 210,800 


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	David D. Johnson

	 
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel

	 
	$ 525,000 


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Richard Pennington

	 
	Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategy

	 
	$ 420,000 







(1) Amounts reported in our proxy statement may vary depending on the timing of pay period during the fiscal year




Directors

Annual Retainer 

a

$65,000 paid in quarterly installments

a

Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, members may elect to receive all or a part of the total retainer in the form of a restricted stock award




Board and Committee Meeting Fees

a

Board - $1,500 per meeting attended after 8 meetings have been held and attended

a

Audit - $1,500 per meeting attended after 10 meetings have been held and attended

a

Compensation, Nominating & Corporate Governance, and Compliance - $1,500 per meeting attended after 4 meetings have been held.  Special Committee - $1,500 for each in-person meeting plus travel expenses.




Additional Annual Retainer for Board Committee Members (payable in quarterly installments)

a

Lead Independent Director - $70,000 cash and an additional grant of restricted shares having a grant-date value of $30,000

a

Chair:  Audit - $35,000; Compensation, Nominating & Corporate Governance, and Compliance - $20,000

a

Member: Audit - $17,500; Compensation, Nominating & Corporate Governance, Compliance, Special Committee - $10,000




Equity Grants 

a

Upon election to the board:  20,000 stock options and 5,000 restricted shares vesting ratably over 3 years

a

Annual grant:  11,000 stock options and 2,750 shares restricted shares with 1-year vesting
Levar BROWN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8504.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Richard D. RICHWINE, petitioner, v. Anthony ROMERO, Warden.

No. 12-9482.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EX-35.2
(logo) OCWEN



ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 7, 2008


RE: ACE 2007-SL2


For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR Section 229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this
regard, I make the following representations, which are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief in all material respects.

1. A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period, and
   of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
   July 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all of
   its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
   Reporting Period.


By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
Name: Ronald M. Faris
Title: President



Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
Centrepark West
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11402]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,776]


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In the Matter of: Harbour Casuals, Incorporated, Plains, PA and 
TA-W-29,776A Roxanne of Pennsylvania, Wilkes-Barre, PA; TA-W-29, 
776B Tamac Manufacturing, Tamaqua, PA.

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 8, 1994, applicable to 
all workers of the subject firm engaged in employment related to the 
production of ladies' sportswear and swimwear at Harbour Casuals, Inc., 
Plains, Pennsylvania. The certification notice was published in the 
Federal Register on June 24, 1994 (59 FR 32716).
    The certification was subsequently amended on December 5, 1994 to 
include the workers of Roxanne of Pennsylvania whose production was 
integrated with Harbour Casuals.
    At the request of the Hazleton-Wyoming Valley District Council of 
the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), the Department 
reviewed the subject certification to determine whether the workers of 
Tamac Manufacturing in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania should be included.
    The findings show that Harbour Casuals, Roxanne of Pennsylvania and 
Tamac Manufacturing have a common ownership and production at Tamac 
Manufacturing is integrated with that of Harbour Casuals. Tamac 
Manufacturing experienced decreased production in 1994 compared to 1993 
and will cease all production of ladies' sportswear in May, 1995. 
Worker separations have occurred in 1994 and 1995.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers who were adversely affected by increased imports of ladies' 
sportswear and swimsuits. Accordingly, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers at Tamac Manufacturing in Tamaqua, 
Pennsylvania.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,776 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Harbour Casuals, Inc., in Plains, Pennsylvania; 
Roxanne of Pennsylvania in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and Tamac 
Manufacturing in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after April 11, 1993 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-11402 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Wydell EVANS, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9448.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0259

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID JOSEPH CORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 5, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 30 2021

03/30/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0259
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 2015

NO. 03-15-00709-CV

Marcia E. Alvarez, Appellant

v.

Victor M. Alvarez, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on October 12, 2015. 

Having reviewed the record, the Court holds that Marcia E. Alvarez has not prosecuted her 

appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2079

___________ Edward Ronwin, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ameren, Missouri Corporation; Jeffrey * Green; Bryan Vance; Gregory Stoner, * [UNPUBLISHED] Union Electric Company, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 1, 2010 Filed: February 4, 2010

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Edward Ronwin appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment on his claims challenging, inter alia, the exercise of aut hority related to the issuance of permits for the installation of boat docks on his lakefront property. Following careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Food Safety at Home

1. Clean 

Always wash your food, hands, counters, and cooking tools.

• Wash hands in warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds. 

Do this before and after touching food.

• Wash your cutting boards, dishes, forks, spoons, knives, and counter tops 

with hot soapy water. Do this after working with each food item.

• Rinse fruits and veggies.

• Do not wash meat, poultry, fish, or eggs. If water splashes from the sink in 

the process of washing, it can spread bacteria.

• Clean the lids on canned goods before opening.

2. Separate (Keep Apart)

Keep raw foods to themselves. Germs can spread from one 

food to another. 

• Keep raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs away from other foods. 

Do this in your shopping cart, bags, and fridge.

• Do not reuse marinades used on raw foods unless you bring them to a boil first.

• Use a special cutting board or plate for raw foods only.

3. Cook 

Foods need to get hot and stay hot. Heat kills germs.

• Cook to safe temperatures:

‐ Beef, Pork, Lamb 145 °F

‐ Fish 145 °F

‐ Ground Beef, Pork, Lamb 160 °F 

- Turkey, Chicken, Duck 165 °

• Use a food thermometer to make 

sure that food is done. You can’t 

always tell by looking.

4. Chill 

Put food in the fridge right away.

• 2-Hour Rule: Put foods in the fridge

or freezer within 2 hours after 

cooking or buying from the store. 

Do this within 1 hour if it is 90 

degrees or hotter outside.

• Never thaw food by simply taking 

it out of the fridge. Thaw food:

‐ In the fridge

‐ Under cold water

‐ In the microwave 

• Marinate foods in the fridge.
Food Safety at Home 

Why should you care about food safety?

Each year millions of people get sick from food illnesses. Food illness can cause you to feel like you 

have the flu. Food illness can also cause serious health problems, even death.

Think you have a food illness? 

Call your doctor and get medical care right away.

• Save the food package, can, or carton.

• Call USDA at 1-888-674-6854 for meat, poultry, or eg

• Call FDA at 1-866-300-4374 for all other foo

• Call your local health department if you think you got sick from food you ate in a restaurant or 

other food seller.

Who is at risk? 

Anyone can get sick from eating spoiled food. Some people are more likely to get sick from food 

illnesses.

• Pregnant women

• Older Adults

• People with certain health conditions like cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and kidney disease

Some foods are more risky for these people. Talk to your doctor or other health provider about 

which foods are safe for you to eat.

 This fact sheet was developed by the FDA Office of Women’s Health.

To get other women’s health resources, go to

www.fda.gov/womens

2021
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


        


        To the Board of Directors


        DOVE ENERGY INC.

         

        Dear Sirs:

         


        We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 20-F of our Auditor’s Report dated September 9, 2008
        with respect to the balance sheets of Dove Energy Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the statements of loss, changes in stockholder’s equity and cash flows for each of the years ended
        December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the eleven month period ended December 31, 2005 which is contained in this Form 20-F of Dove Energy Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.


        


         


        


         


        MEYERS NORRIS PENNY LLP


        Chartered Accountants

         

         


        Calgary, Canada


        February 4, 2009
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 June 30, 2010 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: August 2, 2010 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.
#### Harold SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia A. VINES; Patricia A. Bennett; Lee Newton; United States Parole Commission; Paul A. Williams; John Doe; Mr. Smith; Israel Brooks, Jr.; United States Marshal’s Service; Larry W. Powers, Director; Salvatore Bianco; Speller, Captain; Gilbert, *120Corporal; O’Dell; Wood, Corporal; P. Miller; Tills, Sergeant; Greene, Officer; Spartanburg County Detention Facility; Michael Holmes; Gribbs; Cherokee County Jail; Lieutenant Pilgrim; Colbert, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-7950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit^

Submitted March 29, 2004.

Decided April 28, 2004.

Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant pro se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William Benson Darwin, Jr., Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina; Steven Albert Snyder, Donnan, Morton, Davis & Snyder, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Harold Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Smith failed to timely object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel and to stay this appeal.

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.

*AFFIRMED*
Khiry Marquis ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2562

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENEE LEPAGE 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF NAPA, et al , 

Defendants. 

Case No.17-cv-00600-LB 

ORDER FOR JURY REFRESHMENTS 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States District Court shall furnish daily 

morning refreshments and pastries for the 8 members of the jury in the above-entitled matter 

beginning October 16, 2019 at 7:30 AM, for the duration of the trial, and lunch during jury 

deliberations, at the expense of the United States. The trial will be held in Courtroom B, 15th 

Floor, Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2019 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 123 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 1