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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3731 

To require an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to notify individuals in the case that personal information 

of such individuals is known to have been acquired or accessed as 

a result of a breach of the security of any system maintained by the 

Exchange. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mrs. BLACK (for herself and Mr. MEEHAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to notify individuals 

in the case that personal information of such individuals 

is known to have been acquired or accessed as a result 

of a breach of the security of any system maintained 

by the Exchange. 

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 ‘‘Federal Exchange 

5 Data Breach Notification Act of 2013’’. 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3731 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION TO INDIVIDUALS OF PERSONAL IN2 FORMATION BEING ACQUIRED OR ACCESSED 

3 AS A RESULT OF A BREACH OF SYSTEM SECU4 RITY. 

5 After the discovery of a breach of security of any sys6 tem maintained by an Exchange established pursuant to 

7 section 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

8 Care Act (Public Law 111–148), the Exchange shall, in 

9 accordance with the requirements of the Health Breach 

10 Notification Rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission 

11 (16 C.F.R. 318), provide notice of such breach to each 

12 individual whose personal information (including any non 

13 health-related personal information) is known to have been 

14 acquired or accessed as a result of such breach of security. 

15 A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation 

16 of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice 

17 prescribed under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commis18 sion Act (15 U.S.C. 57a). 

Æ 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008313EN.01000802.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Barcelona) — Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano v Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA

(Case C-313/07) (1)

1

(Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertaking - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Insolvency proceedings - Assignment of lease)

(2008/C 313/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil (Barcelona, Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano

Applicants:

Defendants: Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses does not require, in the event of transfer of an undertaking, the preservation of the lease of commercial premises entered into by the transferor of the undertaking with a third party even though the termination of that lease is likely to entail the termination of contracts of employment transferred to the transferee.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE PLASOLA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55246 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05592-JAK-PVC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jesse Plasola appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state court divorce proceedings. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brown v. Cal. 

Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55246 

immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial 

immunity); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua 

sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants 

State of California and Santa Barbara Superior Court because these defendants are 

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County

Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the 

state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 

F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek 

either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its 

instrumentalities, or its agencies.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants

Timothy Staffel and Jed Beebe because these defendants are entitled to judicial 

immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en 

banc) (judges are immune from suit when performing judicial acts).

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendant 

Roger Hubbard because he is not a state actor under § 1983. See Simmons, 318 

F.3d at 1161 (a lawyer in private practice does not act under color of state law 

under § 1983).

The State of California’s request for summary affirmance, set forth in its
3 20-55246 

answering brief, is denied as moot.

Plasola’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00854-CV

Donald Eugene CARTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 764311

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

REVERSED AND REMANDED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for nondisclosure of

criminal history filed pursuant to Texas Government Code section 411.081, which provides in

pertinent part as follows: “After notice to the state and a hearing on whether the person is entitled

to file the petition and issuance of the order is in the best interest of justice, the court shall issue an

order prohibiting criminal justice agencies from disclosing to the public criminal history record

information related to the offense giving rise to the deferred adjudication.” TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN.
04-07-00854-CV

-2-

§ 411.081(d) (Vernon 2005). In the State’s letter brief, the State joins appellant’s request that this

cause be remanded to the trial court “with specific instructions to grant the nondisclosure.” Neither

appellant nor the State indicate whether the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition, and it

appears from the record on appeal that no such hearing was held. Also, there is no indication the

trial court made a determination that nondisclosure was not in the best interest of justice. Therefore,

it appears the trial court erred by not conducting a hearing on the issue of whether nondisclosure

served the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al.

155A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 25, 2016

James A. Roberts, III, Attorney at Law, Jessica E. Bowers, Attorney at Law, For Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

Matthew C. Bouchard, Attorney at Law.

W. Sidney Aldridge, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, et al.

Judson A. Welborn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For United Bank & Trust Company, et al.

Natalie M. Rice, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Scott McAllister, Manager/Pro Se, Vincent S. Tryer, Jr., Manager/Pro Se, For Helm Builders, LLC.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney at Law, For Shrijee LLC.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of May 2016 by Plaintiff (United Bank & Trust Company, etal.):

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of May 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 10th day of June 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
No. 90-621 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

JOHN W. ROBIDOU, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsJOE HEIMER, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Park, 

The Honorable Byron L. Robb, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Larry Jent; Williams, Jent & Dockins, Bozeman, 

Montana. 

For Respondent: 

Tara DePuy; DePuy Law Firm, Livingston, Montana. 

I 

Filed: 

AUG 20 891 

CLERK OP SUPREME COUR-~ 

":7ATE OF MONTANA 

Submitted on briefs: June 28, 1991 

August 20, 1991 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

John W. Robidou appeals the order of the District Court for 

the Sixth Judicial District, Park County, confirming an arbitration 

award and denying Robidouts motion to vacate. 

The issue is whether the District Court erred in confirming 

an arbitration award. 

Joe Heimer sold Robidou his outfitting and guiding business. 

The parties signed a written contract for the sale. When a 

dispute arose between Heimer and Robidou concerning conveyance of 

certain aspects of the business, by mutual action the parties 

submitted to arbitration. Heimer filed a motion to confirm the 

arbitration award with the District Court. In confirming the 

arbitration award the District Court stated: 

Robidou not only participated in arbitration proceedings 

to resolve [the dispute], but instigated such action. 

Neither party had an attorney at the original arbitration 

hearing, but both thereafter obtained one, another 

arbitration session was scheduled at the request of 

Robidouts attorney to hear testimony of [the attorney who 

prepared the written contract] but Robidouts lawyer did 

not follow through, so the arbitrator affirmed the award. 

Robidou later complained the entire arbitration process 

was improper and the arbitrator not impartial, even 

though all [the arbitrator] in essence ordered was that 

the parties should fulfill their obligations under the 

contract. 

On appeal, Robidou maintains that the arbitration agreement 

was invalid, that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the 

arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make an award. 

As pointed out by the District Court, Robidou agreed to 

arbitration; agreed to the specific arbitrator; and participated 

in the arbitration without raising any objection. Robidou objected 
to the arbitration only after the award was made. 

We affirm the District Court's conclusion that it found no 

basis for invalidating the award. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

We Concur:
ex10-17.htm


 


Exhibit 10.17







NOTICE OF CONVERSION












Global Clean Energy, Inc:












The undersigned hereby elects to surrender and convert a certain past due promissory note dated October 14, 2009 due by Global Clean Energy, Inc, (the “Company”) in favor Eastveld Realty Corp for $18,745.00, which was thereafter assigned to Whydah Communicacion, Inc, into shares of common stock of the Company (the “Common Shares”) according to the conditions hereof, as of the date written below.







Conversion Calculations:







Date of Conversion: May 9th 2013







Amount of Conversion: $18,745.00


Number of Common Shares to be issued: 1,562,084







Amount remaining on note following this conversion: $0.00






















Whydah Communicacion, Inc


By:







(s) Mark Marek







Name: Mark Marek


Title: President
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 33 5 . CEDRI C BOLDEN et a l . v . COLFI N AI -GA 1
, LLC.

Ced ri c Bo l den

, t h ro u g h at t o rn ey G rad y Ro b ert s , s eek s ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t h e

s t at e co urt ’ s ord er d irect i n g t h e ex ecu t i o n o f a wri t o f p o s s es si on in t h is d i s po s s es s o ry

cas e. 1 W e l ack ju ri s d ict i o n b ecau s e t h e ap p l i cat i on i s u n t i m el y

. Al t h ou g h a n o t i ce o f ap p eal g en eral l y m ay b e fi l ed wi th i n t h irt y d ay s o f en t ry

o f t h e o rd er s o u gh t t o be ap p eal ed

, ap p eal s fro m ju dg m en t s in d i s p os s es s o ry act i on s

m u st b e fi l ed wi t h i n sev en d ay s o f t h e d at e th e ju d g m en t was en t ered

. See OCGA §

4 4 -7 -5 6 ; Ra d i o S

an d y Sp r i n g s
, In c. v. Al l en R oa d Jo i n t Ven t u r e , 3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 4,

3 3 5 -3 3 6 (7 1 5 SE2 d 7 5 2) (2 0 11 ). Here, t h e s t at e co u rt ’ s o rd er was en tered on M arch

1 6

, 2 0 1 5 , an d Bo l d en ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal was fi l ed o n M arch 2 6,

2 0 1 5

, t e n d ay s aft er t h e o rd er was en tered

. Acco rd in g l y , t h i s ap p eal is h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Bo l d en prev i ou s ly fi led an ap p l i cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary ap p eal i n t h i s cas e, b u t we t ran s ferred t h e ap p eal t o s t at e co u rt b ecau s e Bo l d en w a s n o t p erm i t t ed to d i rect l y ap p eal a m ag i s t rat e co u rt d eci si o n t o t h i s C o u r t

. Bo l den v. Co l f i n AI-GA 1,
LLC. , Ap p l i cat i o n No . A1 5 D 0 23 1 (Feb ru ary 4

, 2 0 1 5). 04/16/2015 April 16, 2015
EXHIBIT 23
               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated February 13, 2002, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and included in the Annual Report of Xechem  International,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2001. We hereby  consent to
the  incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration  Statement of
Xechem International, Inc. on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-68162, effective August
22, 2001 and SEC File No.  333-71744,  effective  October 17, 2001), and on Form
S-3 (SEC File No. 333-71742, effective November 28, 2001).


GRANT THORNTON LLP


Edison, New Jersey
March 29, 2002
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 28, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), David W. Bullock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that, to his knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



By:

/S/    DAVID W.
BULLOCKDavid W. Bullock Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer January 12, 2005
# C_2009129EN.01001202.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/12

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)

(Case T-118/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Duty to state reasons - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 129/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and C. Balme, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) concerning registration of the word sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Zuffa, LLC, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) N0 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Zuffa, LLC, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) N0 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
Order filed October 13, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00475-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF E.Y.

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-04350J

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 20, 2016. Our review has determined that a 

relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). 

The record does not contain the State's motion to waive jurisdiction.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before October 24, 2016, containing the State's motion to waive 

jurisdiction.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919604
<NAME> KERATOPLANETES CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 59
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,008
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,223)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   59
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (214)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
The TOWN OF BEECH MOUNTAIN, Plaintiff, v. John MILLIGAN and wife, Sharon MILLIGAN, Defendants.

No. COA15-1267.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008092EN.01004602.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/46

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — EAEPC v Commission

(Case T-153/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/91)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

1

---