alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
DR. LUKAS BRAUNSCHWEILER
  Executive Employment Agreement
 1. Employment By The Company
 2. Responsibilities.
 3. Working Time; Office Location.
 4. Compensation And Benefits.
 (a) Base Salary.
 1.




---



##### 



(b) Management Incentive Bonus Plan.
 (c) Replacement of Profit Sharing Payments and other Benefits.
 (d) Social Security Insurance.
 (e) Absences Due to Illness or Injury.
 (i)
 (ii)
 2.




---



##### 



provided that,
 (f) Vacation.
 (g) Business Expenses.
 (h) Dionex Change in Control Severance Benefit Plan. provided, however
 (i) Dionex Equity Grants.
 (j) Indemnification.
 5. Term; Termination.
 (a) Term of Employment. provided, however,
 3.




---



##### 



provided, however,
 (b) Post-Termination Consulting Relationship.
 6. Outside Activities.
 (a) Non-Company Activities.
 (b) No Adverse Interests.
 (c) Noncompetition During Employment.
 4.




---



##### 



provided, however,
 7. Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Obligations.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 8. Compliance With Companys General Employment Policies.
 9. Intellectual Property Rights.
 (a)
 5.




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 (d) Exhibit A
 10. Confidentiality.
 (a)
 (b)
 6.




---



##### 



(c)
 (d)
 11. Liquidated Damages.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 12. Data Protection.
 13. General Provisions.
 (a) Governing Law.
 7.




---



##### 



(b) Complete Agreement.
 (c) Waiver.
 (d) Severability.
 (e) Headings.
 (f) Counterparts.
 (g) Successors and Assigns.
 (h) Notices.
 8.




---



##### 



(i) Right To Work.
 In Witness Whereof
 Dionex (Europe) Management AGBy:
    /s/Riccardo PigliucciRiccardo PigliucciDirectorDate: February 6, 2008 Exhibit A  Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement
 Accepted and agreed:
 /s/ Dr. Lukas BraunschweilerDr. Lukas Braunschweiler  9.




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 EMPLOYEE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND INVENTIONS AGREEMENT
Cristina SUAREZ, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1287

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019. Rehearing Denied JUNE 07, 2019

David F. Garcia, Coconut Grove, Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, and Steven E. Gurian, for appellant.

Maureen G. Pearcy, Coral Gables, and Hinshaw & Culbertson, for appellee.

Before SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.

*On Partial Concession of Error*

PER CURIAM.

Cristina Suarez (the "Insured") appeals a final judgment awarding the defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (the "Insurer"), attorney's fees as the prevailing *689party in a circuit court lawsuit. We affirm as to entitlement to fees, as the Insurer's proposal for settlement complied with section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2018), and the Florida Supreme Court's holdings in *Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC*, 202 So. 3d 391, 395-96 (Fla. 2016).

We reject the Insured's argument that her separate count for declaratory relief (voluntarily dismissed on the first day of trial) was a claim for purely equitable relief that invalidated the Insurer's proposal for settlement. The trial court correctly determined that the "real issue" in the case was a claim for breach of contract and money damages. *See**Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. Javellana*, 238 So. 3d 372, 376-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Based on the Insurer's limited and proper concession of error, we reverse and remand that portion of the final judgment fixing the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the Insurer. On remand, the Insurer shall only recover those attorney's fees incurred and actually paid or payable to its attorneys by the Insurer, from service of the 2016 proposal for settlement through the date of the order granting entitlement to fees. *See* § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Reliance Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Booher*, 166 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (applying dictionary definition of "incurred").

The final judgment is affirmed as to the Insurer's entitlement to attorney's fees, and (pursuant to the Insurer's limited concession of error) reversed and remanded as to the amount of such fees to be awarded to the Insurer.
Donnell Emanuelle HUEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10844]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing 
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984.
    Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement 
at the Washington, DC, Office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit 
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days after the date of the 
Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for 
comments are found in Sec. 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section before 
communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.

    Agreement No.: 203-011493-001.
    Title: Cool Carriers AB/Dammers Chartering NV Discussion Agreement.
    Parties:

    Cool Carriers AB
    Dammers Chartering NV

    Synopsis: The proposed modification amends the Agreement to provide 
for sailing authority, the formation and use of a common agent and 
related matters. It also changes the name of Dammers Chartering N.V. to 
Seatrade Group N.V. In addition, it changes the name of the Agreement 
to Cool Carriers AB/Seatrade Group N.V. Discussion and Sailing 
Agreement. The parties have requested a shortened review period.

    Agreement No.: 203-011497.
    Title: Unigreen Marine, S.A./Flota Mercamte Grancolombiana Space 
Charter and Sailing Agreement.
    Parties:

    Unigreen Marine S.A.
    Flota Mercante Grancolombiana S.A.

    Synopsis: The proposed Agreement authorizes the parties to discuss 
and agree upon rates, rate policies, service items, terms and condition 
of service contracts or tariffs maintained by any party or by any 
conference to which any party may be a member. Adherence to any 
agreement reach is voluntary. In addition, the parties may consult and 
agree upon the deployment and utilization of vessels, charter space 
from one another, and rationalize sailings in the trade between ports 
in Puerto Rico, on the one hand, and ports in Colombia, Curacao, 
Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Panama and Aruba, on the other 
hand, with transshipment between ports in the Far East and Puerto Rico. 
The parties have requested a shortened review period.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: April 27, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10844 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Floyd WEATHERSPOON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7896.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Floyd Weatherspoon, Appellant pro se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Weatherspoon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 Weatherspoon that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Weatherspoon failed to 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, 845M6 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Am,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Weatherspoon has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

*869We 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*
Lynnette OLIVA, Appellant, v. CHRISTIANA TRUST, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 26, 2019.

Lynnette Oliva, in proper person.

Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., and Albert A. Zakarian (Tampa), for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 45.031, Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan*, 104 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding: "Florida case law is clear that the substance of an objection to a foreclosure sale under section 45.031(5) must be directed toward conduct that occurred at, or which related to, the foreclosure sale itself"); *Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank*, 747 So. 2d 1016, 1017-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding: "In order to vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court must find: (1) that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly inadequate; and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale.")
Frank POTTS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8578.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
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, 2018 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.



SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR SABINE ROYALTY
TRUSTBy: /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper
SVP, Royalty Trust Management


Date: May 8, 2018

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Richard E. Staedtler, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Castle Energy Corporation, hereby certifies that:

I.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period June 30, 2003
         (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:   August 13, 2003                            /S/ RICHARD E. STAEDTLER
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Richard E. Staedtler
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000013120-SEP-201209:56 AM
Allen THOMPSON, petitioner, v. Henry DOERING, et al.

No. 12-8730.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Alvin W. BYRD, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1108.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Randy Wayne CARUTHERS, petitioner, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 12-8652.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
QsPr-OQK)^ -OC

lJSLJhe,_

JSl&O.

V,„

lh^^kik^^4~Tdla^

FILED IN

;OURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

w-ottott

—Abel AeostarGlerkIJ31PQ|glH/IE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Pc

M.AY~O-H015-s^7rf-

^bal-AGostarGlerkBpn4-—dflpetJL^\/Gt /2d&£03& <£-*

lt&U-MiX3£-jM°u UMzMkttL.

^hLHi^QDUMJh^/ 6Gta£_

; fcr^V Mot-Ion &>r £k\v*>mi_cli^JTim&^Jh--6k mtitix/jo fz>J^

P^c^k(M^w___^-tofet^ — — ~

VW OPvat V \CW» EbVtoteiwc^,

X.

mfcve (KA-fVtPMf Ujcju? CCflqufck^Ofl_J(W l_\^^^D-V^i^--CQa<lt.

,.q £ ^\m^W\ ^UAV^ l fcftt? n^ \Vv« o%*m*. o £ fl^yo^MA

RpVckxuH mAtea^-f ^e^tt—^_Cky^g JV^UMr.ffisH3 gKtk*—

IjL3GL^__ofeL«yvei__aia-J^te.iMfl^__ffl<3^l^-

3-
"lw Qic&ri AeatAm W -fiUw) VW peVtfw> -fa OcytJ-nMK •/-

J1L_.

-fetfciKDlVlft -£mfc'. Qe\i\rCMe/ &VO-r> /1&-j iwforweJ S^Uie? decision

2Z*^P& -

"TDcv- t/)^ luiffiHI.

£bLihz&,^^AJJ43l&-/
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10656]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices
[[Page 21064]]

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Committee on Judicial Review

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 
92-463), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Committee on 
Judicial Review of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

DATES: Tuesday, May 9, 1995, at 10:30 a.m.

LOCATION: Office of the Chairman, Administrative Conference, 2120 L 
Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC (Library, 5th Floor).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Candace Fowler, Office of the 
Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, 2120 L Street 
NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 254-7020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting of the Committee on Judicial 
Review is to continue discussion of draft recommendations based on a 
report by Professor William Kovacic, visiting at American University, 
on choice of forum in government contract bid protest disputes.
    Attendance at the meetings is open to the interested public, but 
limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend should notify 
the Office of the Chairman at least one day in advance. The chairman of 
the committee, if he deems it appropriate, may permit members of the 
public to present oral statements at the meeting. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement with the committee before, during, 
or after the meeting. Minutes of the meeting will be available on 
request.

    Dated: April 26, 1995.
Jeffrey S. Lubbers,
Research Director.
[FR Doc. 95-10656 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110-01-W
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 DISCOVERY

HEARING RE SUBPOENA TO

ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI

Anthony Levandowski shall respond to plaintiff Waymo LLC’s discovery letter brief

dated April 11 (Dkt. No. 212) by 11:00 P.M. TONIGHT. The frequency of discovery disputes in

this case has reached the breaking point. The Court will soon refer all such disputes to a

magistrate judge. 

At the end of the technology tutorial tomorrow, the Court will use whatever time is

available to consider this matter and the two other discovery disputes that have been served up

since last night. The parties, however, should be aware that there may not be sufficient time to

address all discovery issues, and the resolution of some issues may have to wait until after

April 24, when the magistrate judge to whom discovery will be referred becomes available.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 214 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 1
Janet A. WAGNER, Appellant, v. Lacy A. YORK AS Successor TRUSTEE OF the HARRY M. CANAVESI LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2001, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-421

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Michael Alexander BROWN, petitioner, v. Kenneth T. McKEE, Warden.

No. 12-8619.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
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 RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO SHORTEN TIME

AND FILE UNDER SEAL

The hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. No. 115) is rescheduled

from May 4 to APRIL 27 AT 8:00 A.M. The opposition brief remains due by April 10 and any

reply brief remains due by April 17. To accelerate the hearing date any more would be unfair,

given that defendants have known about this controversy for months and could have brought

their motion to compel arbitration earlier. Instead, defendants waited until after the other side

had made its motion for provisional relief. To give even more priority to the motion to compel

arbitration would place undue pressure on the schedule for the motion for provisional relief,

including the expedited discovery. The Court may or may not be able to rule on the motion to

compel arbitration prior to the hearing on May 3 (not May 4) concerning the motion for

provisional relief, which May 3 hearing date remains firm. 

Counsel shall please keep in mind that the manner in which the motions have been

presented, including excessive redaction demands associated therewith, may inform the Court

as to the advisability of staying this case pending arbitration, a forum where everything is

redacted from public view. Other factors that would be of interest include how far along the

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 2
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

2

arbitration in question has advanced; who the arbitrators are; their relevant expertise; the extent

to which depositions and document discovery will be available on an expedited basis; and when

the arbitration will be concluded by comparison to proceedings in this case, a question that

bears on the equitable factor of whether this case should be stayed in favor of arbitration.

Except as stated above, defendants’ administrative motion to shorten time (Dkt. No. 95)

is DENIED.

During the conference yesterday, counsel for both sides reached an agreement as to

which portions of the motion to compel arbitration (and its attachments) truly deserve to be

filed under seal. Defendants shall please revise the proposed order on their administrative

motion to file under seal (Dkt. No. 114) accordingly and file the revised proposed order by

APRIL 3 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 2
Terrence PARIS, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
David Phillip RUFFA, petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, et al.

No. 12-9666.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article 

3 I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Eighteenth 

4 Congress the Speaker of the House and the Majority 

5 Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 

6 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

7 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, 
2 

•HCON 1 EH 

1 may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, 

2 respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District 

3 of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 

4 warrant it. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of 

government.
Miguel Luis PAGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 9, 2019

Miguel L. Pagan, Bristol, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*810AFFIRMED. *See**Novaton v. State* , 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994).

COHEN, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.