alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

FRANK WIDDIFIELD, 6:14-cv-00780-MA 

Petitioner, ORDER 

v. 

JEFF PREMO, 

Respondent. 

MARSH, Judge 

Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss (#22) is GRANTED. 

This proceeding is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Because 

petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this~ day of January, 2015. 

Malcolm F. M<irsh 

United States District Judge 

1 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-00780-MA Document 23 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 1
Spa*

‘Minute Order Porm (06/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran __. | _ than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4816 DATE 11/25/2002
CASE Ezzat Slaich et al. Vs. Illinois Central RR et al.
TITLE :
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.] .
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qq) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box. above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
@ Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for Ata
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to...
(9) QO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry) | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The motion for reconsideration is
denied.

(11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff, A

Notified counsel by telephone. Nov 26 erg
wv | Docketing to mail notices. Ly

Mail AO 450 form. Nno3 hole Sla°sy n dosha deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. cane)

Hy !
vite S i
courttoom HY S2 AON 29 date mailed notice
war | dour OT 93.934
Date/time.receiv |
central Clerk’s Office ailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EZZAT SLAIEH, NADIA SLAIEH.
natural parents and next friends of
SHADIA SLAIJEH, a minor,

Plaintiffs,

vs. No. 02 C 4816

DOCKETED

NOV 2 6 2002

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD, et al.,

wee eerervererererverw

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs move to reconsider the order of dismissal of the Illinois Central Railroad Co.
and Amtrak, contending that they timely asserted their rights in the wrong forum because they
filed in Mississippi within three years of the accident and Mississippi has a three-year statute.
But the “timely” refers to a filing here, the proper forum, and the filing in Mississippi was
after the statute had run in Ilinois.

When a case is transferred to Illinois because of improper venue, we apply Illinois
choice of law rules, which means we apply the Illinois limitations statue. Were it otherwise,
a plaintiff who should have sued here but failed to do so before the statute ran could select
another but unrelated forum with a longer limitations period, as here, to in effect revive an

expired claim. See Koutsoubos y, Casanave, 816 F.Supp. 472, 475, fn.5 (N.D. Ill. 1993). The

Ane 8. Moo

JAMES B. MORAN
Sehidr Judge, U. S. District Court

motion for reconsideration is denied.

Mon. BS , 2002.
[No. 80144-4.

En Banc.]

Considered June 5, 2008.

Decided June 12, 2008.

#### *In the Matter of the Detention of*Kim Michael Smith, *Petitioner.*

*700
      *Thomas M. Kummerow*(of *Washington Appellate Project),*for petitioner.

*Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General,*and *Todd R. Bowers, Assistant,*for respondent.

¶1

We held in *In re Detention of Elmore,*165 Wn.2d 27, 36, 168 P.3d 1285 (2007), that a 2005 amendment! *701to the sexually violent predator act was not retroactive. Because the facts here are substantially the same as those in *Elmore,*we grant Kim Smith’s petition for review and reverse the Court of Appeals.

*700Per Curiam

*701¶2 The trial court committed Smith as a sexually violent predator in 2002. Following Smith’s annual show cause hearing in 2004, the court granted Smith an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he should be released based on an expert’s opinion that Smith’s advancing age rendered him no longer likely to commit future acts of sexual violence. The trial court based its ruling on the Court of Appeals’ then-recent decision in *In re Detention of Young,*120 Wn. App. 753, 86 P.3d 810 (2004), which held that advancing age alone could justify an evidentiary hearing. Just before trial in 2005, the legislature amended RCW 71.09.090 to provide that advancing age alone does not justify a hearing to determine eligibility for release. Based on the amendment, the trial court granted the State’s motion to vacate the order granting Smith an evidentiary hearing.

¶3 The Court of Appeals affirmed, issuing its decision after we granted review in *Elmore*but before we filed that decision. In light of our decision in *Elmore,*the 2005 amendment cannot retroactively be applied to deny Smith an evidentiary hearing on whether his advancing age renders him no longer likely to commit acts of sexual violence.

¶4 We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ADDENDUM TO LICENSING AGREEMENT

         Addendum to Licensing Agreement between Venitech, LLC and
Community Alliance, Inc. dated February 6, 2008.

         WHEREAS, Article 3, of the License Agreement, LICENSE FEE,
presently reads as follows:
        ARTICLE 3
        LICENSE FEE

         For the grant of the License and the use of the Intellectual
Property, Trade Marks, Copyrighted Material, Business Concept and Know-
How as described herein, and the Territory as described herein,
Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor a License fee of Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000.00).  Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to be paid on
or before 90 days of the signing of this Agreement another ten thousand
dollars ($10,000.00) will be paid on or before 190 days from the
signing of this agreement.  In addition, Venitech, LLC shall receive
twenty percent (20%) of the net profit of sales generated by the
selling of advertising space on the school folders in the Territory.

         All payments to be paid to Licensor pursuant to this Agreement
shall be sent or delivered to Licensor at its notice address as
hereinafter specified and shall be in United States currency.
Any payment not mailed by certified mail by licensee or otherwise
delivered to licensor on or before the date by which that payment is to
be paid shall be delinquent and overdue and shall be cause to revoke
this Agreement under terms described herein.

        PARAGRAPH 3 - LICENSE FEE -is hereby amended to read:

         For the grant of the License and the use of the Intellectual
Property, Trade Marks, Copyrighted Material, Business Concept and Know-
How as described herein, and the Territory as described herein,
Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor a License fee of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) on or before 90 days from the signing of the
Agreement.

         In addition, Venitech, LLC shall receive twenty five percent
(25%) of the net profit of sales generated by the selling of
advertising space on the school folders in the Territory, until an
amount of $10,000 has been paid and thereafter Venitech, LLC shall
receive a total of 20% of net profit received on advertising space
sold.

         All payments to be paid to Licensor pursuant to this Agreement
shall be sent or delivered to Licensor at its notice address as
hereinafter specified and shall be in United States currency.
Any payment not mailed by certified mail by licensee or otherwise
delivered to licensor on or before the date by which that payment is to
be paid shall be delinquent and overdue and shall be cause to revoke
this Agreement under terms described herein.




This addendum to the above named License Agreement is entered
into by the Parties on this the 28 day of July, 2008.

Venitech, LLC

By:  /s/Ruth Daily
     --------------------------

        Ruth Daily - Director

Fresh Ideas Media, Inc.

By:  /s/Phil E. Ray
     --------------------------
     Phil E. Ray - President
#### In the Matter of Theresa Lemmitt, Petitioner, v Ricardo Morales, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 149]

Determination of respondent, dated September 3, 2008, which terminated petitioner’s tenancy on the grounds of nondesirability and breach of New York City Housing Authority rules and regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Richard F. Braun, J.], entered July 6, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The New York City Housing Authority’s determination *448terminating petitioner’s tenancy is supported by substantial evidence. The New York City Police Department executed a search warrant of petitioner’s apartment, based on the testimony of a confidential informant that he had purchased drugs there from Shawn Gatling, a friend of petitioner and her family. The police recovered drugs and drug paraphernalia, and arrested petitioner, her daughter, and Gatling, who were all present in the apartment at the time of the raid (CPLR 7803 [4]; *see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45*NY2d 176 [1978]; *Matter of Diaz v Hernandez,*66 AD3d 525 [2009]). The hearing officer’s rejection of petitioner’s testimony that she was unaware of the presence of the drugs and paraphernalia in the apartment is entitled to deference *(Matter of Diaz,*66 AD3d at 526). Furthermore, evidence of drug activity in the apartment that was not attributable to Gatling and Gatling’s presence in the apartment is also substantial evidence of petitioner’s violation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement. That stipulation resulted from administrative charges brought in 2004 in which she agreed that she and any guests in the apartment would not commit any act that would constitute grounds for termination of her tenancy and that she would not permit Gatling to reside in or visit her apartment and that his absence would continue beyond any probationary period.

Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness *(see Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550, 555 [2000]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CEO Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Ennio De Rigo certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of De Rigo S.p.A.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the company and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Date: June ...., 2005
 
/s/ Ennio De Rigo
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, Umang Gupta, certify that: 

 

1.    I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keynote Systems, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

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

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 14, 2003 

 

/s/ Umang Gupta                

Umang Gupta 

*Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Invasive Species and Pollinator Health: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Albany, California Western Regional Research Center Invasive Species and Pollinator Health People & Locations







Jens  Beets
                        Invasive Species and Pollinator Health

                        




                        
                        Research Ecologist
                        Phone: (530) 752-0631
                        
                        
                        Fax: (530) 752-4604(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report,
dated February 14, 1997, on the consolidated financial statements of
Shoreline Financial Corporation which appears on page 37 of Shoreline
Financial Corporation's Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended
December 31, 1996, in Shoreline Financial Corporation's previously filed
registration statements for its 1989 Stock Option Plan (Registration No.
33-29052), Dividend Reinvestment Plan (Registration No. 33-34008), 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan (Registration No. 333-10629) and Stock Incentive Plan
of 1996 (Registration No. 333-09819).


                                   /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

                                   Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

South Bend, Indiana
March 21, 1997
#### Wild West Ventures, LLC, Appellant, v 703 Washington Corp. et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 89] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered September 13, 2011, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and for dismissal of defendants’ counterclaim; granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint; granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counter*741claim; directed that the escrowed funds in the amount of $2,500,000 be released and delivered to defendants; and ordered that plaintiff pay defendants’ legal fees and disbursements in the amount of $65,761.51, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that defendants’ failure to disclose a pending slip and fall action prior to the scheduled closing date was neither a material breach of their obligation to disclose actions or proceedings which would affect the purchaser or property prior to closing, nor was the potential of the action to affect the premises an issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

The slip and fall action was well within the liability insurance limits, the insurer was indemnifying and defending the action, and the alleged defect that gave rise to the suit had been repaired. While the suit arguably caused the property’s liability insurance premium to increase, it increased by only $582, a de minimis amount, particularly when considered in light of the $34,000,000 purchase price of the property.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Ren wick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# C_2005062EN.01000801.xml

| 12.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/8

---

Notice of 21 January 2005 from the Malta Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

1

(2005/C 62/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

In accordance with Article 3(3) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Minister for Resources and Infrastructure of the Republic of Malta hereby notifies that the following areas (or parts thereof) in offshore Malta are available for authorisation on a permanent basis under either an Exploration Licence or an Exploration and Production Licence:

| (i) | Area 1 |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Area 1

| (ii) | Area 3 (except Blocks indicated below) |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Area 3 (except Blocks indicated below)

| (iii) | Area 4 (except Block indicated below) |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Area 4 (except Block indicated below)

| (iv) | Area 6 |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Area 6

The following Areas/Blocks are already under an authorisation granted prior to 1 May 2004 and are not available until further notification:

| (i) | Area 2 |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Area 2

| (ii) | Block 4 and Block 5 of Area 3 |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Block 4 and Block 5 of Area 3

| (iii) | Block 3 of Area 4 |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Block 3 of Area 4

| (iv) | Area 5 |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Area 5

| (v) | Area 7 |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Area 7

Applicants shall provide the information requested in the form published in the Petroleum (Production) Regulations, 2001 (Legal Notice 320 of 2001, 1 December 2001).

(Legal Notice 320 of 2001, 1 December 2001)

The Areas/Blocks available for authorisation as well as the Areas/Blocks already under an authorisation are delimited by geographical coordinates that may be obtained, together with other information, by contacting the Oil Exploration Department at the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure, Block B, Floriana CMR 02, Malta, on telephone number (356) 21 23 79 21.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

1

---