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 

ORDER RE CONSENTS TO

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

On May 28, 2019, plaintiff-relator Zuri Lazard filed a request for voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice. Dkt. No. 41. Ms. Lazard stated that the United States and the State of 

California indicated that they did not object to dismissal without prejudice. Id. at 1. However, the 

United States and State of California must give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons 

for consenting before this action may be dismissed. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1); U.S. ex rel. McGough 

v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1396–97 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, if they consent to the dismissal, the United States and State of California 

shall submit written consents to Ms. Lazard’s voluntary dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730(b)(1) by June 7, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge
#### Jerry M. AIROLA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Marianne C. BLAKELY, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-74650.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

Cliff W. Marcek, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.

General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Transportation Safety Board, S.W. Washington, DC, Lisa J. Toscano, Los Angeles, CA, Agnes Emma Rodriguez, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jerry M. Airola petitions for review of the National Transportation Safety *552Board’s order dismissing his appeal from an administrative law judge’s decision affirming the suspension of his commercial pilot certificate. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 44709(f), and we deny the petition.

Airola contends that the Board erred in dismissing his appeal pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 821.48(a) because he showed good cause for filing his brief one day late. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that Airola’s attorney did not establish good cause by asserting that he did not realize until the due date that he could not fax the brief. *See Gilbert v. National Transp. Safety Bd.,*80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1996).

Airola also contends that the ALJ denied him due process by granting summary judgment without allowing him to present evidence at the hearing on the charges against him. At a pre-hearing conference, the ALJ informed the parties that he would consider the FAA’s summary judgment motion at the hearing. Following an offer of proof as to Airola’s testimony, the ALJ granted partial summary judgment, and the hearing proceeded only as to mitigation. These procedures gave Airola notice and an opportunity to be heard, and thus did not violate his right to due process. *See Go Leasing, Inc. v. National Transp. Safety Bd.,*800 F.2d 1514, 1523 (9th Cir.1986).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:12-CR-125 JD

)

OSCAR ARZATE (03) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on May 22, 2012 [DE 60]. The court notes, however, that the report and

recommendation incorrectly refers to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) rather than the statute of

indictment, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and

recommendations as modified, ACCEPTS defendant Oscar Arzate’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the

defendant guilty of Count 6 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 28, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
Bobby Lee SAVIORY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-140

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
David Robert RUDERMAN, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-8412.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 13

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-14 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FORM OF

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

O’CHARLEY’S INC.

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

(the “Amendment”)




O’CHARLEY’S INC.

(the “Company”)




and



 




(“Executive”)




January 12, 2009




BACKGROUND





	A.	 	Executive is currently employed as the Company’s                      and is party to that certain
O’Charley’s Inc. Executive Employment Agreement dated as of November 6, 2007 by and between
the Company and Executive (the “Agreement”).






	B.	 	The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to address the matters set forth
below.





     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Agreement as follows:



     Section 1. Section 1.3 of Article I of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the
defined term “Initial Term” shall mean August 29, 2011.



     Section 2. Section 3.2(a)(i) of Article III of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following:



          “(i) continued monthly payments, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices,
for a period of twelve (12) months after the date of termination equal to the sum of (1)
one-twelfth (1/12) of Executive’s Base Salary, and (2) one-twelfth (1/12) of the greater of
Executive’s target annual bonus for the fiscal year in which the date of termination occurs, or the
Executive’s target annual bonus for the 2008 fiscal year;”




     Section 3. Effect of Amendment. Except as and to the extent expressly modified by
this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in all respects.



     Section 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each
of which shall constitute an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one
agreement.



 









 





     Section 5. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Tennessee, without regard to its conflict of
laws rules.



[Signature Page Follows]




2









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	O’CHARLEY’S INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 
	 

	 	Title
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Certification Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William J. McMorrow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


1.c.1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


1.c.2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.


In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:March 27, 2015/s/ WILLIAM J. MCMORROWWilliam J. McMorrowChief Executive Officer


The foregoing 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. 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 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        I, Scott G. McNealy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 29, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.




                                             By:    /s/ Scott G. McNealy
                                                 -------------------------------

                                             Name:  Scott G. McNealy
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer
2021

التجارب الرسيرية للنساء 

= األمل

التجارب الرسيرية للنساء)ARABIC)

 التجارب الرسيرية هي دراسات بحثية تساعد عىل إظهار ما إذا كان

 االختبار أو العالج فعال وآمن. وهناك عدة طرق ميكنك من خاللها

 املشاركة يف التجربة. إذ تطرح عليك بعض التجارب أسئلة عن العالجات

 التي تتناولها بالفعل. بينام تتناول دواء جديدا يف تجارب أخرى. ويف حني

 تستخدم بعض التجارب الرسيرية الناس األصحاء. يستخدم البعض اآلخر

.األشخاص الذين يعانون من مشكلة صحية معينة

هل تشارك النساء يف التجارب الرسيرية؟

نعم. تخضع النساء بالفعل للتجارب الرسيرية. غري أن النساء من مختلف الثقافات ما زلن بحاجة إىل املشاركة. وينبغي أن تفكر النساء من 

جميع األعامر واملجموعات العرقية واإلثنية وذوات اإلعاقة أو الحاالت الصحية املزمنة يف خوض التجربة الرسيرية.

فيمكنك املساعدة من خالل الخضوع لتجربة رسيرية. إذ ميكنك إحداث فرقب مساعدة األطباء يف معرفة املزيد عن صحة املرأة. 

ملاذا يجب عيل النساء املشاركة؟

قد تؤثر املنتجات الطبيةعىل الرجال والنساء بشكل مختلف. لذا من املهم أن تشارك املرأة ألن أحياناالنساءيكون لديها أثارجانبيةمختلفة. 

وميكن أن يؤثر جسم املرأة أيضاعلىكيفية عمل األدوية واألجهزة.

اسأل مقدم الرعاية الصحية إذا 

كانت التجربة الرسيرية تناسبك. 

مكتب صحة املرأة التابع لهيئة الغذاء والدو اء )FDA )

womeninclinicaltrials/gov.fda.www
 15شيئا عليك معرفتها

قبل الخضوع للتجارب الرسيرية

خضوعك لتجربة رسيرية أمر عائد إليك. ال ينبغي أن تشعري بأنك تحت ضغط. 

يحق لك سحب تفويضك يف أي وقت. هناك قواعد لحامية األشخاص املشاركني يف التجارب الرسيرية.

املوافقة املستنرية هي التعرف عيل الحقائق الرئيسية حول التجربة الرسيرية قبل االنضامم. هذه القامئة ليست كل ما تحتاج إىل معرفته 

ولكنها ستساعدك عىل توضيح األمور. تأكد أمه متت اإلجابة عىل أسئلتك قبل املوافقة عىل املشاركة. إكتشف:

الغرض وما الذي سيحدث

	. الغرض من الدراسة

	. األدوية والفحوصات والعالجات التي قد تتلقاها

	. كم ستدوم الدراسة وكم مرة ستأيت

	. كيف سيحافظون عىل خصوصية معلوماتك

	. ماذا يحدث عند انتهاء الدراسة

الفوائد واملخاطر املحتملة

قد توفر التجربة العالجات أو الفحوصات، ولكن ليس 

هناك ضامن بتحسن صحتك. فقد ال يناسب الدواء أو 

اختبار أو العالج حالتك

	. مزايا العالجات 

	. املخاطر واآلثار الجانبية للعالجات

	. أي عالجات أو خيارات أخرى لألشخاص املصابني مبرضك

	. إذا كنت تستطيع تناول أدويتك األخرى 

الدعم والتكاليف األخرى املحتملة

		. العالج أو الخدمات املدفوعة من قبل الدراسة 

		.

		.

		.

		.

وإذا ما كانت الدراسة تتضمن تكاليف رعاية الطفل أو النقل

التكاليف التي قد يتعني عليك دفعها

النكاليف املغطاة من قبل التأمني

كيفية الحصول عىل املزيد من املعلومات

مبن يجب عليك االتصال إذا كنت لديك أسئلة أو مشاكل

		. كيفية الحصول عىل النتائج

ما هو دور هيئة الغذاء والدواء؟

هيئة الغذاء والدواء األمريكية )FDA )تتأكد من أن العالجات الطبية آمنةوفعالة الستخدامها من قبل األشخاص. ولكن ال تطور هيئة الغذاء 

والدواء عالجات جديدة أو تجري أى تجارب رسيرية. 

ويقيم مكتب صحة املرأة التابعلهيئة الغذاء والدواءرشاكةمع مكتب أبحاث صحة املرأة التابع للمعاهد الوطنية للصحة يف مبادرةلتعزيز 

مشاركة مختلف النساء يف التجارب الرسيرية. ملعرفة املزيد عن هذه األنشطة، يرجى زيارة: 

womeninclinicaltrials/gov.fda.www
David J. WHITE, Appellant, v. Vonda K. WHITE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1281

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Harry James MARSHALL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9158.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mindy Ann WALKER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50429.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

*562Patrick K. O’Toole, AUSA, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David J. Zugman, Esq., Law Offices of David J. Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RYMER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** Chief District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Mindy Ann Walker appeals her conviction for importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.

1. Defendant’s first argument is that the agents did not have reasonable suspicion to search her gas tank. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Flores-Montano,*— U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that removing and disassembling a vehicle’s gas tank during a border search does not require reasonable suspicion in view of the government’s plenary authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border.

2. Defendant’s second argument is that the search violated the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, because a National Guardsman assisted in the search. Even assuming a violation of the Act, a defendant may not obtain exclusion of evidence as a result. *See United States v. Roberts,*779 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir.1986) (so holding under an earlier version of a similar statute that applied to the Navy), *abrogation on other grounds recognized by United States v. Khan,*35 F.3d 426, 432 n. 7 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### SCHLEICHER COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER INC., Appellant, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Appellee.

No. 03-1039.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 4, 2004.

Jane W. Vanneman, Principal Attorney, David M. Cohen, William Robinson, of Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Gilbert J. Ginsburg, Principal Attorney, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Before CLEVENGER, RADER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 10.5.5


 


AMENDMENT
TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

(John A. Burchett)


 


THIS AMENDMENT
TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into on February 12, 2009 by and
between Hanover Capital Mortgage Holdings, Inc., a Maryland corporation,
with its offices located at 200 Metroplex Drive, Suite 100, Edison, New
Jersey 08817 (“Hanover”), or any successor to
Hanover (the “Company”), and John A. Burchett
(the “Employee”), an individual whose residence
is 896 Highland Avenue, Westfield, New Jersey 07070.  This Agreement is an amendment and
restatement of that certain employment agreement entered into between the
Company and Employee as of September 30, 2008 (the “Agreement”).


 


The Company and Employee hereby amend and restate the Agreement in the
following particulars:


 


1.             The
second WHEREAS clause in the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as
follows:


 


“WHEREAS, in
connection with the contemplated merger transaction as set forth in the Second
Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 6,
2009, among Walter Industries, Inc., JWH Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company wholly-owned by Walter (“JWHHC”),
Walter Investment Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
wholly-owned by Walter, and the Company (the “Merger”),
as amended from time to time; and”


 


Except as
herein provided and modified, the Company and Employee agree that the Agreement
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employee has executed this Agreement and the
Company has caused this Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized officer
as of the 12th day of February, 2009.


 


	
   

  	
  COMPANY:

  
	
   

  	
  HANOVER CAPITAL MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ SUZETTE BERRIOS

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Suzette Berrios

  
	
   

  	
  Title: General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ JOHN A. BURCHETT

  
	
   

  	
  John A. Burchett
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2016

No. 04-16-00593-CV

Alvin M. BURNS, I.M. Burns, Dimmit County, Hakim Dermish, Robert L. Ramirez and Edward 

J. Dryden,

Appellants

v.

ROSETTA RESOURCES, LTD., a/k/a Rosetta Resources, Inc., Eusebio Cantu Torres, Eusebio 

Torres, Jr., Gladiator Energy Services, LLC,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-07-11738-DCV

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due on October 20, 2016. One volume of the 

reporter’s record has been filed to date. One of the other court reporters responsible for 

preparing the reporter’s record has filed a notification of late reporter’s record stating that 

appellants have failed to request and pay, or make arrangements to pay, the court reporter’s fee 

for preparing the record.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellants provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days from the date of this order that: (1) a written request has been made to each court 

reporter for preparation of their portion of the reporter’s record pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(b)(1); and (2) either (i) each court reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay each court reporter’s fee, or (ii) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the 

court reporters’ fees.

If appellants fail to respond to this order within the time provided, the appellant’s brief 

will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider 

those issues or points raised in the appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a 

decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are abated pending a 

response to this order.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
      Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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.


**/S/ MARK SHEFTS****Mark
                Shefts**
              **Chief
                Financial Officer**
              **December
                5, 2007**