alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Balance Sheet at March 31, 1999 and the Condensed Statement of
Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         230,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    540,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,074,235
<PP&E>                                       1,284,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                 682,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,975,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,915,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 27,179,880
<COMMON>                                        32,919
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,157,827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,975,604
<SALES>                                         40,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,253
<CGS>                                           16,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,770,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,831,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,831,162)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,831,162)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS MASTER SERVICER 1123 CERTIFICATION **Re: Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series****2007-IQ15**Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement, the undersigned Officer, to the best of his/her knowledge, hereby certifies to the following obligations as set forth in Item 1123 of Regulation AB applicable to it: (A) a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and, (B) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Certificate Registrar __/s/: Karen R. Beard_________ Name:  Karen R. Beard Title:    Vice President Date: March 1, 2008
음식을 적절히 차갑게 유지하는 것이 중요한 이유 

음식을 담아 뚜껑을 덮어 

팬을 쌓아 놓으면 팬에 있

는 음식은 24시간 후에도 

여전히 78 ̊F(25.5 ̊C)를 유

지합니다. 

저는 누구를 질병에 전혀 없었습니다. 이음식을 제대로 식힙음식을 올바로 식히음식을 얕은 금속 팬에 냉장 보관합니다. 

음식을 작은 용기에 나보관합니다. 신속하게 식히는 설비용기 속의 음식을 얼음 식힙니다. 기타 효과적인 방법. 

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오.

음식을 올바르게 식히십시오.
Stephen M. KESSLER, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 12-9733.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Dr. Paramesh Gopi, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). 

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or its staff upon request. 

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

Dated:November 3, 2010
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.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO 

HAC VICE APPLICATION

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Joseph Grinstein (Dkt. No. 1184) is DENIED

for failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. That rule requires an applicant to certify that “he or

she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest

court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added). 

Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it identifies only the

state of bar membership — e.g., “the bar of Texas” — is inadequate under the rule because it

fails to identify a specific court. While the application fee does not need to be paid again, the

application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1191 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.3





Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors


Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.:


We consent to the use of our report dated March 31, 2014, with respect to the combined statements of operations, members’ capital, and cash flows of KW Funds - 303 North Glenoaks, LLC and KW Funds - 6100 Wilshire, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2013, and the related notes to the combined financial statements, incorporated by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-174742, No. 333-175002, No. 333-175559, No. 333-184752, and No. 333-192059) on Form S-3, the registration statements (No. 333-164928, No. 333-182269, and No. 333-197492) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-164926) on Form S-1/A and the registration statement (No. 333-186690) on Form S-4 of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. in reliance upon the report of KPMG LLP, independent auditors, which report appears in amendment no. 1 to the December 31, 2015 annual report on Form 10-K of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.








/s/ KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California


March 25, 2016
Edward James ROSE, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 13-6589.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

*697Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1099

RONALD LUBER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND; LAURA A. NEWMAN, County 

Executive, In Her Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-00001-JKB)

Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Luber, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Luber appeals a district court order dismissing 

his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) 

for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the court’s 

memorandum and the record and affirm for the reasons stated by 

the court. See Luber v. Anne Arundel Cnty., Md., No. 1:14-cv00001-JKB (D. Md. entered Jan. 13, 2014, filed Jan. 14, 2014). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 10/26/12 page 1 of 5
case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 10/26/12 page 2 of 5
case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 10/26/12 page 3 of 5
case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 10/26/12 page 4 of 5
case 1:12-cv-00420-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 10/26/12 page 5 of 5
Exhibit 32.2


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


         I, Dennis M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

              (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
              for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")
              fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
              applicable, 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.

                                                    PHOTOMEDEX, INC.


Dated: August 9, 2004
                                                    By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath
                                                        ---------------------
                                                    Dennis M. McGrath
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by
PhotoMedex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Wesley Eugene BROOKS, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA; and Wesley Eugene Brooks, petitioner, v. Minnesota.

No. 12-478.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota for further consideration in light of *Missouri v. McNeely,* 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1552, ---L.Ed.2d ---- (2013).
Renee WHITE, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, petitioners, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 12-1209.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a Sua Sponte 

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been filed. The time for 

filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned to case 

3:17-cv-00123-JST Chris Azpeitia v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC

I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned 

to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case 

assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case 

determination.

Case Title Related Not 

Related

17-cv-03850-

WHA

Bonner v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company 

LLC

X

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of the 

newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management conference in any 

reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, 

disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for 

hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re- noticed by the moving party before the newly 

assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established 

in a case management order continue to govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be 

rescheduled by the newly assigned judge.

Dated: July 25, 2017 By: ________________________

Jon S. Tigar

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00123-JST Document 45 Filed 07/25/17 Page 1 of 1
Mark MAY, et ux., petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 13-244.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
----

----

----

----

----

|   | PURCHASER:                    |   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC.                                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                          |   |                                                              |   |
|   |                          |   |                                                              |   |
|   |  /s/ Dennis M. McGrath   |   | By:  /s/ Richard J. DePiano                                  |   |
|   | Name: Dennis M. McGrath  |   | Name: Richard J. DePianoTitle: Chairman of the Board of Directors |   |

----

----
Mohammad MIRMEHDI, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 12-522.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michael Everrett HARRIS, petitioner, v. Peter J. MESSITTE, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, et al.

No. 13-5627.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### Dennis J. ERBY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-60492.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 28, 2004.

Jim D. Waide, III, Waide *&*Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rickey T. Moore, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Billy Berryhill, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

The court has carefully considered this case in light of the briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law. Although the inferential evidence of racial discrimination in regard to Erby’s failure to promote claim was weak, it was not so nonexistent as to require taking the claim away from the jury. No doubt their view of this claim was also colored by the more compelling evidence on the retaliation claim. We find no reversible error in the court’s remitted award of damages or in its decision to deny a new trial.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Samuel SLEDGE, petitioner, v. BELLWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 88.

No. 12-844.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### Blayne WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margo FRASIER, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-50624.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 28, 2004.

*218Ronald J. Merriweather, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Anthony J. Nelson, Eric Montgomery Shepperd, Alicia M. Lee, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Travis, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Blayne Williams sues for alleged violations of title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court dismissed for failure to prosecute. Finding no error, we affirm.

Williams asserts the following in the conclusion to his appellate brief:

> Williams hired an attorney to prosecute his employment discrimination claims. Williams discovered at the end of the discovery period that his initial attorney had done virtually nothing to get his claims fairly adjudicated on the merits. Williams then hired present counsel to attempt to get his case properly before the Court. The only “litigation” of this case occurred between April 14, 2003 and May 27, 2003, about six (6) weeks. All Williams [sic ] efforts were thwarted and upon appeal Williams request [sic] that this Court reverse and remand this case, with directions to allow Williams to amend his complaint, to open discovery for a six (6) month period and for the case to pursue a normal course, via a revised scheduling order, to a trial by jury, as the facts and law may dictate.

The district court, in its order of dismissal, provides a similarly gloomy assessment:

> Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendant’s motion [to dismiss, and, in the alternative, to compel sanctions]. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(d), Defendant’s motion for dismissal is granted as unopposed.

> Plaintiffs failure to respond caps a demonstrated history of intransigence and delay. Plaintiff refuses to cooperate in discovery. Plaintiff refuses to respond to discovery requests, answer interrogatories, or appear for deposition. This case has been on the docket since July of 2001. To date, there has been no discovery.

Dismissal was therefore proper. We express no opinion on whether plaintiff, his previous attorney, or both are at fault. Especially in a civil proceeding, a party who acts through counsel cannot get a second bite at the apple because he perceives that counsel did not do enough. Nor do we express any view on whatever merits plaintiff might have attempted to present.

The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

July 19, 2004

John Viera,
1760 Airline Hwy, PMB 203
Hollister, CA  95023

Dear John,

Maxtor Corporation is pleased to offer you a promotion to Sr. Vice President,
Human Resources reporting to Paul Tufano. Your monthly salary will be
$25,000.00. You will participate in the 2004 Incentive Plan with an anticipated
participation level of 50% of your base salary, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Plan. Your 50% Incentive Plan participation level will be
pro-rated from the date of your promotion and your previous percentage will
apply to the portion of the fiscal year prior to your promotion.

Furthermore, the Board of Directors has approved that you be granted an option
to purchase 80,000 shares and 15,000 Restricted Stock Units of Maxtor
Corporation Common Stock. Your eligibility to purchase shares of the Company
will be governed by Maxtor's Stock Option Plan. You will receive more
information about the exercise price, vesting schedule, and other details of
both programs after the approval.

In addition to your current benefits, you are eligible for a car allowance of
$700.00 a month and will be provided with an allowance up to $5,000.00 per year
to reimburse you for personal financial, tax or legal consulting services.

Job responsibilities, compensation, and other conditions of your employment with
Maxtor may be subject to change without notice at any time based on the
Company's operating conditions. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to principles of
conflict of laws.

John, we look forward to having you as a senior member of Maxtor's management
team and are confident that you will make significant contributions to the
Company's success. If you accept our offer, please sign the response portion of
this letter and return it to the Human Resources Department.

Sincerely,



Norman Brown
Sr. Director, Staffing




Accepted: /s/ John Viera                                   Date: July 19, 2004
         ------------------------------------------        ---------------------
                           John Viera



I hereby accept the above. I understand that my employment is at-will, that I am
free to resign, and that Maxtor is free to terminate my employment, at any time,
for any reason or for no reason. I acknowledge that no promises whatsoever have
been made to me concerning any term, condition or aspect of my employment with
Maxtor, except as specifically set forth in this letter and by the Executive
Retention and Severance Plan.