alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24873-24874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11471]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Proposed Establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge in Georgetown, 
Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, and Notice of Meetings to 
Seek Public Participation

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent and meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Southeast Region, intends to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for the proposed establishment of a national wildlife 
refuge in Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, and 
plans to hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the proposed 
refuge to involve the public in the preparation of the EIS.

DATES: The Service will hold two scoping meetings as follows: (1) At 
7:00 p.m. on June 20, 1995, at the Georgetown High School Auditorium, 
Georgetown, South Carolina; and (2) at [[Page 24874]] 7:00 p.m. on June 
21, 1995, at the Horry County Council Chambers, Conway, South Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Charles R. Danner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 
Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The study area for the proposed refuge 
includes approximately 42,000 acres of wetlands and upland forests 
between the Intracoastal Waterway and U.S. Highway 701 north of Winyah 
Bay in Coastal South Carolina. The boundaries of the proposed refuge 
have not been determined. The specific location will be based on 
availability of land, ecosystem needs, and public comments on the 
suitability of the proposal.
    The purpose of the proposed refuge is to protect an important 
component of the Winyah Bay ecosystem for the benefit of endangered and 
threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and forest 
wildlife. The study area contains extensive freshwater tidal wetlands; 
large contiguous blocks of bottom land hardwood forests; and upland 
plant communities consisting of longleaf and loblolly pine and mixed 
hardwoods such as turkey, water,and laurel oak. It provides some of the 
most valuable production and wintering habitat for wood ducks in the 
state and is recognized as a key emphasis area in the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan. The associated upland forests provide 
habitat for the red-cocked woodpecker, bald eagle, and wood stork, all 
federally listed endangered species. Another endangered species, the 
shortnose sturgeon, inhabits the area's rivers and waterways.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Noreen K. Clough,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11471 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Craig A. McCollam, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Dionex Corporation, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. Dionex Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007,to which this Certification is attached (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Dionex Corporation.     By:  /s/ Craig A. McCollam    Name:  Craig A. McCollam    Title:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  February 8, 2008
Nicholas J. BORSELLINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3055

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 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

Case No.3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

DECLARATION OF JEFF NARDINELLI

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4788

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY W. 

NARDINELLI

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 527-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 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

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- Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

DECLARATION OF JEFF NARDINELLI

/s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

I, Jeffrey W. Nardinelli, hereby declare as follows.

1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and an associate with Quinn 

Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”). I make this 

declaration of personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and 

would testify competently as follows. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a highlighted version of 

the February 22, 2016 Uber/Otto term sheet, served by Defendants to Waymo on May 11, 2016.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a highlighted version of 

the Uber/Otto merger agreement, served by Defendants to Waymo on May 11, 2016.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a highlighted version of 

exhibits to the Uber/Otto merger agreement, served by Defendants to Waymo on May 11, 2016.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: May 30, 2017 /s Jeffrey W. Nardinelli

Jeffrey W. Nardinelli

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Jeff Nardinelli.

 

 Charles K. Verhoeven

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 527-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 included
in Part I Financial information and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   11,281,000
<SECURITIES>                             10,077,000
<RECEIVABLES>                             3,911,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         29,039,000
<PP&E>                                   41,705,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            9,372,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           61,372,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     6,368,000
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  5,752,000
<OTHER-SE>                               49,252,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             61,372,000
<SALES>                                   3,503,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,503,000
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             3,890,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             90,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (282,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (277,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (277,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)


</TABLE>
Maura Lee BURKE, a/k/a Maura Lee Wahlberg, individually and as Trustee of the Grever-Burke Trust, Appellant, v. Roy GREVER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Noreen Grever, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2931

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SSC ODIN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, dba Odin Healthcare Center, petitioner, v. Sue CARTER, Special Administrator of the Estate of Joyce Gott, Deceased.

No. 12-1012.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

*1999Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Marcus Jermaine ROYSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9021.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Neil J. GILLESPIE, petitioner, v. THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, et al.; and Neil J. Gillespie, petitioner, v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al.

No. 12-7747.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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

RUDY SIMENTAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00801-SI 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22

The court recently referred this action for a settlement conference set to take place in 

Sacramento on November 9, 2017. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for assignment of the action to an ADR mediation program and 

to stay discovery. (Docket No. 21.) The request for assignment to an ADR mediation program is 

DISMISSED as moot because the court already referred the action for a settlement conference. 

With regard to discovery, plaintiff explained that he wants a stay of discovery to avoid his 

deposition set for October 13. His motion was not mailed until the day before the deposition was 

set to occur and was not filed at the court until a few days thereafter. His desire to avoid the 

deposition now appears to be a moot point. Plaintiff has not identified any other pending 

discovery, or shown a need for a stay of discovery at this point. Plaintiff’s motion to stay 

discovery therefore is DENIED. (Docket No. 21.)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in this action. A district 

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 
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

involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring 

the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. The motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED. (Docket No. 22.)

Several of plaintiff’s filings have contained single-spaced typing. The court accepts typed 

as well as handwritten documents from pro se litigants, but does require that they be doublespaced because the court reads hundreds of pages of documents each week. All future filings from 

plaintiff must be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-

4(c)(2) (“Text must appear on one side only and must be double-spaced with no more than 28 

lines per page.”) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
Vincent A. PICCONE, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.

No. 12-5376.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Lindsey PEARSON, petitioner, v. Willie SMITH, Warden.

No. 12-8222.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 24673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11544]



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

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Notice of Vote to Close Meeting

    At its meeting on May 1, 1995, the Board of Governors of the United 
States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation 
its meeting scheduled for June 5, 1995, in Austin, Texas. The members 
will consider (1) a final funding request for the Chicago, Illinois, 
Processing & Distribution Center, and (2) research and development 
funding for electronic commerce services. The members will also be 
briefed on the acquisition of leased postal facilities.
    The meeting is expected to be attended by the following persons: 
Governors Alvarado, Daniels, del Junco, Dyhrkopp, Mackie, Pace, and 
Winters; Postmaster General Runyon, Deputy Postmaster General Coughlin, 
Secretary to the Board Harris, and General Counsel Elcano.
    The Board determined that pursuant to section 552b(c)(9)(B) of 
Title 5, United States Code, and section 7.3(i) of Title 39, Code of 
Federal Regulations, this portion of the meeting is exempt from the 
open meeting requirement of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 
U.S.C. 552b(b)] because it is likely to disclose information, the 
premature disclosure of which would significantly frustrate proposed 
procurement actions.
    The Board further determined that the pubic interest does not 
require that the Board's discussion of the matter be open to the 
public.
    In accordance with section 552b(f)(1) of Title 5, United States 
Code, and section 7.6(a) of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that 
in her opinion the meeting may properly be closed to public observation 
pursuant to section 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5, United States Code; and 
section 7.3(i) of Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations.
    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to 
the Secretary of the Board, David F. Harris, at (202) 268-4800.
David F. Harris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11544 Filed 5-5-95; 3:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
Micah LAMB, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-7693.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Sahar RIZK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Emad SADIK, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1751

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. David BOURG

NO. 2019-K-0038

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit- "It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.


Nếu bạn mang găng tay hay sử dụng các dụng cụ khi chế biến thức ăn làm sẵn, 

bạn hãy giữ cho thức ăn và khách hàng của bạn được an toàn.

 

✘

 

Hãy bảo vệ mọi người khỏi bị bệnh. Luôn mang găng tay hay sử dụng 

dụng cụ khi chế biến thức ăn làm sẵn.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1248 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to prevent government agencies 

from requiring or prohibiting employers in the construction industry 

to enter into agreements with labor organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. PENCE, Mr. 

HENSARLING, Mr. KING of Iowa, and Mr. MARCHANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to prevent government agencies from requiring or prohibiting employers 

in the construction industry to enter into agreements 

with labor organizations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Government Labor 

5 Neutrality Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1248 IH 

1 SEC. 2. MANDATE OF GOVERNMENT LABOR NEUTRALITY 

2 TOWARD EMPLOYERS COVERED UNDER THE 

3 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

4 Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

5 U.S.C. 158(e)) is amended by adding at the end of the 

6 first proviso the following: ‘‘Provided further, That not7 withstanding any other provision of this Act, an agency 

8 or department of the Government, an agent acting on the 

9 Government’s behalf, a recipient of a Federal grant or fi10 nancial assistance, a person who has entered into a cooper11 ative agreement with the Government, a State or political 

12 subdivision thereof, shall not require or prohibit an em13 ployer in the construction industry to enter into an agree14 ment with a labor organization in connection with any con15 struction, alteration, painting, or repair work.’’. 

Æ
No. 99-10762 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10762 Summary Calendar

ROY LEE SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VANESSA R. SMITH; JEROME THOMAS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-2410-G

-------------------- March 24, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roy Lee Smith appeals the district court’s grant of the appellees’ motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. He argues that the district court erred in granting their motion. The district court did not so err. The appellees’ summary judgment evidence showed that they exercised reasonable professional judgment in obtaining the warrant for appellant Smith’s arrest, and Smith’s summary judgment evidence was insufficient to rebut this showing. See Little v. Liquid AirNo. 99-10762 -2- Corp., Inc., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Malley v. Briggs , 475 U.S. 335, 345-46 (1986). The appellees’ summary judgment evidence also showed that they did not act with malice in initiating the investigation of appellant Smith, and Smith likewise did not rebut this showing. See Kerr v. Lyford , 171 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court thus did not err in granting summary judgment to the appellees on appellant Smith’s federal law claims. The district court also did not err in granting summary judgment to the appellees on appellant Smith’s state law claims, as he was arrested pursuant to a valid warrant and the appellees did not act with malice in initiating the investigation against him. See Cantu v. Botello , 910 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tex. App. 1995); Thrift v. Hubbard , 974 S.W.2d 70, 77 (Tex. App. 1998). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when handling appellant Smith’s Rule 56 motion for continuance and request for discovery, as Smith failed to show how additional discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990); International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., fka ER Solutions, Inc., petitioner, v. Anthony W. ZINNI.

No. 12-744.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1427 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the 10-year limitation 

on the collection of nontax debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the 

10-year limitation on the collection of nontax debt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 10-YEAR LIMITATION ON COL4 LECTION OF NONTAX DEBT BY ADMINISTRA5 TIVE OFFSET. 

6 Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States Code, is 

7 amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(e) This section— 

9 ‘‘(1) applies to a claim under this subchapter 

10 regardless of the period it has been outstanding; and 
2 

•HR 1427 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) does not apply when a statute explicitly 

2 prohibits using administrative offset or setoff to col3 lect the claim or type of claim involved.’’. 

Æ
Grace LIU, petitioner, v. Gordon W. SPENCER.

No. 12-8801.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
Martina CAVIEZEL, et vir, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardian s of CC, petitioners, v. GREAT NECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS aka Great Neck Union Free School District, et al.

No. 12-869.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Talecris BiotherapeuticsHoldings Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Dated:  February 23, 2010 |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | /s/  Lawrence D. Stern         |
|   | Lawrence  D. Stern             |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer       |

 

----