alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Peter Andrew STANLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a)**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

I, Lyndon R. Rive, certify that: 

1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SolarCity Corporation; 

2) Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 27, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from National
Property  Investors 6 2000 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000708870
<NAME>                                National Property Investors 6
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                    1,313
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                   70,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                           48,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           25,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                  26,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                               (1,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             25,735
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          2,822
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          2,716
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                106
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0.96 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00747

- CV

Marcelo GALVAN , Jr. and Analicia R. Galvan,

Appellants

v.

Cledson Macedo de CARVALHO , Kristina Carvalho and Jagaland Co., LLC,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVH001835

- D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the orders of the trial court are

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees, Cledson Macedo de Carvalho, Kristina Carvalho,

and Jagaland Co., LLC, recover their costs of this appeal from appellants, Marcelo Galvan, Jr. and

Analicia R. Galvan.

SIGNED February 19 , 2020.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Abts Sal cya cr gai Sa

Qpladill Aa gh Gud gle Cut) cob’ ai cod Caled ary a gl CUS cal) aa) Qf
4s oils 4 ub Ws gle g Lgtuste 6) 9) - ami} sack a gil iS ¢ dal g ids
da yracl}

sages dal g Giles «cya palls Saas 20 cigael) Ad a ylaitil) dag! gb s ccd 9 «Sau ale Ghai 9

aglatiy Clady Jud gle Laila Gaye's Gls SS cod Cutt] dylan (8 ade
LS BREY) Gar coll slg Cl decal
TERM SHEET


Exhibit 10.5




Summary of Compensation Arrangements

With Executive Officers







			
	Effective Date:

	 
	January 1, 2009 (except for stock options).


	 
	 
	 

	Term:

	 
	Three years.


	 
	 
	 

	Base Salary:

	 
	$125,000 per year each. Increases for 2010 and 2011 subject to approval of Compensation Committee with target salaries of $150,000 and $175,000, respectively.  Increases should be based upon profitability, positive cash flow and such other factors as the Compensation Committee deems important. 


	 
	 
	 

	Bonus Compensation:

	 
	Each executive will receive a bonus for fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, which shall be subject to the discretion of the Compensation Committee based upon job performance, revenue growth, positive cash flow and net income before taxes.  The target bonuses for each executive shall be $93,750 for 2009, $112,500 for 2010 and $131,250 for 2011.


	 
	 
	 

	Stock Options:

	 
	Grant on December 19, 2009 of 10-year options at fair market value under the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, subject to execution of the standard Stock Option Agreement as follows:


	 
	 
	Michael Cordani – 500,000


	 
	 
	Joe Ingarra – 500,000


	 
	 
	Peter Cordani – 500,000


	 
	 
	 

	Vesting:

	 
	The options shall vest in one-third increments each year subject to continued employment on the applicable vesting date, based upon meeting budgeted revenue targets or if the Company fails to meet the budgeted revenue for the applicable fiscal year, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to vest the entire number for that year. Any options which do not vest in a fiscal year shall be forfeited.


	 
	 
	 

	Severance:

	 
	Upon termination without cause or for good reason, the executives are entitled to one year’s severance.  If the good reason event is a change in control, the executive must be terminated within one year of the change of control.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
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 Cono Italiano, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mitchell Brown, Principal
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, to my
knowledge that:





(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
Company.





Date:
March 30, 2010




By:
            /s/ Mitchell BrownName:   
      Mitchell BrownTitle:     
      Principal Executive Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1549, -1550

ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD.,

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and BARR LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

KALI LABORATORIES, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.,

and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Defendants,

and

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in

case nos. 04-CV-886 and 06-CV-3533, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The parties jointly move for an extension of time, until February 18, 2009, for

Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. et al. and Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories,

Ltd. to file their briefs, and an extension of time, until March 30, 2009, for Ortho-McNeil

Pharmaceutical, Inc. to file its response/reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 9 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Date FILED

us. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Esq.

John L. North, Esq.

James F. Hurst, Esq.

Arnold B. Calmann, Esq.

FEB 0 9 2009

14k HORIMLI

CLERK

s8

2008-1549, -1550	2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1271 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1271

To repeal a provision relating to privacy officers in the Consolidated 
                       Appropriations Act, 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2005

  Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal a provision relating to privacy officers in the Consolidated 
                       Appropriations Act, 2005.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PRIVACY OFFICER PROVISION.

    Section 522 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, 
and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 
118 Stat. 3268; 5 U.S.C. 552a note), is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 15.1 

 

November 6, 2003 

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-9293, 33-11154, 33-15271, 33-18602,33-25860, 33-28505, 33-33344, 33-38220, 33-51129, 33-56577, 333-01459, 333-09867, 333-15179, 333-34543, 333-34651, 333-38163, 333-40677, 333-40675, 333-59503, 333-62987, 333-65531, 333-67183, 333-72413, 333-86267, 333-89391, 333-90907, 333-35796,333-45540, 333-48080, 333-49788, 333-52314, 333-56358, 333-59466, 333-61120, 333-62034, 333-68140, 333-73218, 333-98097, 333-100189, 333-101332, 333-101323, 333-102920, 333-108639, and 333-109303; and Form S-3 Nos. 333-81101 and 333-63716) of SunMicrosystems, Inc. of our report dated October 15, 2003 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Sun Microsystems, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2003. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part of theregistration statements prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

/s/  Ernst & Young LLP
EXHIBIT 5 

FILED UNDER SEAL 
1

James Judah

From: Popken, Betsy (Colleen) <bpopken@orrick.com>

Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 3:00 PM

To: James Judah

Cc: Karen Dunn; Martha Goodman; Ray, Wendy J.; Rivera, Sylvia; Brown, Walter F.; Haag, 

Melinda; Linsenmayer, Robin A.; Poer, Jennifer Nejad; Uriarte, Robert L.

Subject: Waymo v. Uber - text message production

Attachments: TK-AL Texts for Production - 8.4.17.pdf

Hi James, 

Per your request, attached is an advance courtesy copy of a spreadsheet reflecting text messages recovered from Travis 

Kalanick’s phone. The password for the file is 

This spreadsheet identifies all text messages located between Mr. Kalanick and Anthony Levandowski (or in some 

instances, group chats in which the two are participants) after an extensive search and eyes-on-review of data from a 

backup of Mr. Kalanick’s mobile phone. 

 

Please note that there are time and date stamps from 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014 that are obviously 

incorrect. However, we have included the time and date stamps here as they exist on the phone. 

 

The texts themselves will be forthcoming. 

 

All the best, 

Betsy 

Colleen (Betsy) Popken

Managing Associate 

Orrick

San Francisco

T +1-415-773-5774 

bpopken@orrick.com 

 

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you 

received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of 

the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1442.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

James E. Long, Albany, NY, for Appellant.

*772Robert P. Storch, Assistant United States Attorney (Grant C. Jaquith, Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney, Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, on the brief), Albany, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

PRESENT: FEINBERG, MESKILL and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

In this sentencing-only appeal, defendant Michael Brown challenges the District Court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3C1.1.* The District Court entered its findings pursuant to this Court’s remand instruction that the sentencing enhancement could not be applied unless the District Court made specific factual findings that warranted the enhancement, *see United States v. Brown,*321 F.3d 347 (2d Cir.2003). Defendant contends that the District Court’s findings do not support imposition of the enhancement.

Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the District Court did not err in imposing the obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, *see, e.g., United States v. Carty,*264 F.3d 191, 194-96 (2d Cir.2001), and the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

*

 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 provides for a two-step increase in a defendant’s offense level if the defendant "willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.”
Version November 2023

FDA FACT SHEET

STATE EMPLOYEE TRAINING

COORDINATION PROGRAM

ProgramDescription

• One of the Office of Partnerships’ goals is to interact with and serve as the focal point for cooperating state

and local officials to promote cohesive and uniform policies and activities in food and drug-related matters.

• One way of accomplishing this goal of uniformity is to offer state agencies, with the same public health

responsibilities as the FDA, opportunities to attend select Food, Emergency Response, and Veterinary

Medicine FDA training opportunities.

IntendedOutcomes

• State attendees benefit from FDA training in a variety of ways:

o Meeting training requirements on FDA contracts.

o Improving Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards (MFRPS) conformance.

o Enhancing overall knowledge of their inspection staff.

ProgramMetrics:

• Provides Coordination for:

o Manufactured Food courses

o Veterinary Medicine courses

o Emergency Responsecourses

o Produce and Sprout courses 

• Coordinates approximately 650 state agency attendees per year

Have you seen our Blog? FDA Voice

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protectsthe public health by assuring the safety,

effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological productsfor human use, and medical devices. The

agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off

electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Office of Partnerships

12420 Parklawn Drive
Version November 2023

Rockville, MD, 20857

www.fda.gov
Naomi SANDRES, petitioner, v. MV TECH AUTOWORKS.

No. 12-8329.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
त यार भोजन को 7 दि नो ं स े अधि क तक रखन े स

आपक े ग्राहक बीमार पड ़ सकत े ह ैं!

सभ ी जगह लोगो ं की सरकषा कर ।

र फरि जर ट कि या हआ त यार भोजन, 

7 दि नो ं क े अ दर परोस द ं या फ क द !

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

दि न, 41°F (5°C) पर

ै े

ु ् ें

े ़् े ु ै

ं े ें ें
Keeping prepared foods longer than

7 days can make your customers sick!

Protect People Everywhere.

Serve or discard refrigerated,

prepared food within 7 days!

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

Days at 41oF (5oC)
Exhibit 10.2


 


Second Amendment to the

FOSTER WHEELER INC.

1995 Stock Option Plan

(As Amended and Restated as of September 24, 2002)


 


The Foster Wheeler Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”)
is hereby further amended as follows, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the
Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler Ltd. and its Compensation Committee at
their meetings held December 8, 2008, and resolutions adopted by the Board
of Directors of Foster Wheeler Inc. dated January 23, 2009:


 


1.             References in the Plan to “Parent” are replaced with “Foster
Wheeler AG.”


 


2.             The following language is added to the end of Section 11:


 


Foster Wheeler Ltd. moved
the place of organization of the parent company of its group of companies from
Bermuda to Switzerland by means of a scheme of arrangement (“Scheme of
Arrangement”) between Foster Wheeler Ltd. and Foster Wheeler AG, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Foster Wheeler Ltd. registered in Switzerland, and certain
related agreements described in Foster Wheeler Ltd.’s Proxy Statement for the
Special Court-Ordered Meeting of Common Shareholders held on January 27,
2009.  Effective upon the completion of
the Scheme of Arrangement, shares of Foster Wheeler AG will be issued, held,
made available, or used to measure benefits as appropriate under the Plan in
lieu of common shares of Foster Wheeler Ltd. with respect to all outstanding
awards.


 


3.             This Second Amendment shall take effect upon
completion of the Scheme of Arrangement (as described in the resolutions
adopted on December 8, 2008 by the Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler
Ltd.) and shall apply to all awards outstanding on such date.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Foster Wheeler Inc. has caused this Second Amendment
to the Plan to be executed.


 


	
   

  	
  FOSTER WHEELER INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Peter J. Ganz

  
	
   

  	
  Name: 

  	
  Peter J. Ganz

  
	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-31027

HARRY JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:11-CV-22

Before KING, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal of the district court’s denial of Harry Jackson’s motion 

for recusal and grant of summary judgment to the Department of Homeland 

Security in an action for wrongful termination on the basis of racial 

discrimination and retaliation. This court has considered the appeal on the 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 18, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-31027 Document: 00512774152 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2014
No. 13-31027

basis of the briefs, the record, and oral argument. Having done so, we affirm, 

essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-31027 Document: 00512774152 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2014