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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1799

JAMES R. FARLEY, d/b/a F D Electrical Mining Equipment 

Company, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

PITTSTON COAL COMPANY; EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; 

STERLING SMOKELESS COAL COMPANY; JAMES CONLEY JUSTICE, d/b/a 

Beckley Management Company; LAWRENCE C. RATLIFF, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (5:93-cv-00484) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James R. Farley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John Hurney, Jr., 

Clifford Forrest Kinney, Jr., JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 James R. Farley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying Farley’s motion to reopen this 1994 civil action. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case 

are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2000). See

Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). Parties are 

accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s 

final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). A failure to file a notice of 

appeal in accordance with § 2107 deprives the appellate court of 

jurisdiction. Bowles, 127 S. Ct. at 2366. 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on April 11, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 

2008. Because Farley failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

2 
3 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
JACKSON v. CENTURY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

337A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 2, 2017

Tony S. Botros, Attorney at Law, for Jackson, Thomas, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Century Mutual Insurance Company

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of October 2017 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of November 2017."

Plaintiff-Appellant shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 17, 2008

Ms. Tanya Nicole Garrison

Weycer Kaplan Pulaski & Zuber, P.C.

1400 Summit Tower

Eleven Greenway Plaza

Houston, TX 77046-1104

Mr. Peter Michael Zavaletta

The Zavaletta Law Firm

603 East St. Charles Street

Brownsville, TX 78520

Honorable Arturo Americo Mcdonald Jr.

Cameron County Court #1

974 E Harrison Street

Brownsville, TX 78521

RE:Case Number:  08-0820

Court of Appeals Number:  13-08-00366-CV

Trial Court Number:  2006-CCL-00133-A

Style:IN RE  GREATER HOUSTON ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Motion for Interim Relief and issued the enclosed stay order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0820Page 1**
STATE v. Nancy Benge AUSTIN

294PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2017

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Nancy Benge Austin.

Lance B. Sigmon, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of December 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 19th day of January 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO** **SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Sidney
      L. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
      April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
      Inc.





Date:
                June 23, 2008
            /s/
                Sidney L. AndersonSidney
                L. AndersonChief
                Executive Officer and President





I,
      Clayton Woodrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
      ended April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
      in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
      Inc.





Date:
                June 23, 2008
            /s/
                Clayton WoodrumClayton
                WoodrumChief
                Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Nancy Benge AUSTIN

No. 294PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 07, 2017

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Nancy Benge Austin.

Lance B. Sigmon, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th of August 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this *146Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# CE2004088EN.01013702.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/137

---

(2004/C 88 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Subject:

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

1

What steps is the Commission taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

(26 November 2003)

With Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April 2003 the Council adopted measures preventing the entry into or transit through Member State territories of individuals engaged in activities which help others to evade justice for crimes for which the ICTY has indicted them.

When adopting this Common Position, the Council agreed that amendments to the list of persons identified in the annex could be adopted as required. Thus, on 27 June 2003 under Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP (2), the Council, following recommendations from the office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and after consultations with the ICTY, added new names.

2

The Commission and Member States remain in contact with the ICTY and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and keep the list under review. If or when new evidence emerges concerning other individuals, appropriate steps can be taken.

---

(1)  OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

1

(2)  OJ L 162, 1.7.2003 amended by OJ L 178, 17.7.2003.

2

---
# 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 6 A1 79 2 . J ERMAI NE SPENCE v . THE STATE.

On Ap ri l 2 3
, 2 0 1 4
, t he t ri al co u rt ci v il l y co m m i t t e d J erm ai n e Sp en ce t o t h e

cu s t o d y o f t h e Dep art m en t o f Beh av i o ral Heal t h & Dev el o p m en tal Di sab i l i t i es

. On Ap ri l 2, 2 0 1 5
, t h e tri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er co nt i n u i ng Sp en ce’ s ci v i l co m m i t m en t

. Th ereaft er, o n M ay 1 1
, 2 01 5
, Sp en ce f i l e d a n ot i ce o f ap p eal

. 1 W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. To b e t i m el y , a n o t i ce of ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e
ap p eal ab l e o rd er. See O CGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). T h e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l in g o f a n o t i ce

o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n th i s Co urt

. See Co u ch

v. Un i t ed Pa

p er wo r ker s In t l

. Un i o n , 2 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. 7 2 1 ( 4 8 2 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ).
S p e n ce fi l ed h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal 3 9 d ay s aft er th e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n ti n u i n g c i v i l

co m m i t m en t o rd er. Acco rd i n g ly
, we l ack ju ri s d i ct io n to co ns i d er Sp en ce’ s u n t i m el y
ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -4 8 (b ) (1 ).

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 i s a t r 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 th 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 Sp en ce o ri g i n al l y fi l ed h i s ap p eal i n t h e G eo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt , wh i ch
t ran s ferred t he cas e t o t h i s Co u rt aft er fi n d i ng n o b as i s fo r ju ri s d i ct io n. 06/07/2016 June 07, 2016
In the MATTER OF: E.D.B. & G.L.B.

No. COA17-476

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

AFFIRMED.
termination




AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE THE ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT 
BY AND BETWEEN SENSATA INVESTMENT COMPANY, S.C.A. AND SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING N.V.


The undersigned: 
Sensata Investment Company S.C.A., a company duly incorporated and existing under the laws of Luxembourg, having its corporate seat in Luxembourg and having its offices at 9a Parc d’Activite Syrdall, L-5365 Munsbach, Luxembourg (hereinafter referred to as “Provider”), and 
Sensata Technologies Holding N.V., a company duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, having its corporate seat in Almelo and having its offices at Kolthofsingel 8,7602 EM Almelo, the Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as “Recipient”), 


WHEREAS, the Provider and the Recipient (collectively the “Parties”) entered into the Administrative Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with an effective date of 1 January 2008.
WHEREAS, the Parties mutually agree to terminate the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do terminate the Agreement by mutual consent effective immediately.
Section 1.     The Parties hereby terminate the Agreement by mutual consent effective immediately.   Each of the Parties waives any notice period in Section 2.2 of the Agreement.
Section 2.   Each of the Parties will provide for its own services and bear its own expenses of such services going forward.
Section 3.     This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on 10 May 2013. 


	
						
	Sensata Investment Company S.C.A.
	 
	Sensata Technologies Holding N.V.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/  Ailbhe Jennings
	 
	By:
	/s/  Martha Sullivan
	 

	Name:
	Ailbhe Jennings
	 
	Name:
	Martha Sullivan
	 

	Title:
	Director
	 
	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer
CALD-EX10.2_2014.6.30-Q2












[Date]


[Name]
[Address]


Dear [First Name],


On behalf of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Callidus Software Inc. (“Company”), I am very pleased to offer you a seat on the Company’s Board.  This offer is contingent upon satisfactory completion of, among other things, a background check including review of your completed D&O questionnaire and appointment upon affirmative vote of the Board.


Assuming the Company completes its satisfactory review prior to the Board’s next scheduled meeting, your appointment will become effective on [Date] (“Start Date”).  Unless otherwise determined by the Board at the time of your appointment, it is anticipated that you will be designated a Class [I/II/III] director with a term of office running through the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders in [Year] at which time you will have the opportunity to stand for election for a standard three year term.


Each director who is not an officer or employee of the Company (each, an “Outside Director”) is paid a calendar quarter retainer of $7,500.  [The [chairman of the board] [lead independent director] is paid an additional quarterly amount of $7,500.]  Members of the [Audit Committee are paid an additional quarterly amount of $2,500] [Compensation Committee are paid an additional quarterly amount of $2,000] [Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are paid an additional quarterly amount of $1,500]. [The chairman of the [Audit Committee is paid an additional quarterly amount of $5,000] [Compensation Committee is paid an additional quarterly amount of $3,750] [Audit Committee is paid an additional quarterly amount of $2,000].]


Additionally, the Board has established a stock incentive plan under which each Outside Director automatically receives, on the date of his/her appointment to the Board, a restricted stock unit award with a grant date value of $125,000 vested in full on the first anniversary of the grant date.  Thereafter, following each annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company, each Outside Director automatically receives a restricted stock unit award with a grant date value of $125,000 [and the chairman of the board automatically receives a restricted stock unit award with a grant date value of $60,000, each of] [and the lead independent director automatically receives a restricted stock unit award with a grant date value of $30,000, each of] which is vested completely on the first anniversary of the grant date. 


All cash and equity awards for Outside Directors are subject to proration based on his/her Start Date and, if applicable, termination date.


On behalf of the Board, we very much look forward to your participation and involvement with the Company.  Please signify your acceptance of this conditional offer by signing and dating this letter where indicated below and returning it to me at your earliest possible convenience.


Sincerely,






[Name]
[Title]


Accepted this ____ day of [Month, Year].






________________________________
[First Name, Last Name]
#### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of America, by and through its next friend, Angel CALLWOOD, Plaintiff/Relator, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendant.

No. CIV.1996-76.

District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Thomas and St. John.

Aug. 13, 2003.

ORDER

MOORE, District Judge.

This day, August 13, 2003, the Court heard argument on the Amended Emergency Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notice of Lis Pendens filed by the Government of the Virgin Islands on August 7, 2003. Angel Callwood signed and submitted a “Notice of Lis Pendens,” which was recorded on July 23, 2003 by Wilma O. Hart Smith, *435Recorder of Deeds, St. Thomas-St. John as Doc No. 2003005894. The Notice of Lis Pendens stated:

> This is to advise that the above captioned case places a cloud on the title to properties in *(Estate Smith Bay & Estate Nazareth)*and that prospective buyers or dealers should take note.

(emphasis in original). The “above captioned case” referred to in the notice is *United States ex. rel. Angel Callwood v. Government of the Virgin Islands,*Civ. No.1996-76, a *qui tarn*action filed under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 in which Angel Callwood is the relator.

I heard argument from the Government of the Virgin Islands and the relator Angel Callwood. Upon the Court’s invitation, the United States also presented its position on the issue. I found that a *qui tam*action does not directly affect title to land. Accordingly, it is not a pending action that can support the filing of a lis pendens or notice of action against the land record, at the Office of Recorder of Deeds under 28 V.I.C. § 130. Therefore, the notice of lis pendens is void, of no effect, and must be stricken from the record.

It is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant’s Amended Emergency Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notice of Lis Pendens is GRANTED and Angel Callwood’s “Notice of Lis Pendens,” Doc No. 2003005394, filed and recorded on July 23, 2003 by Wilma O. Hart Smith, Recorder of Deeds, St. Thomas-St. John is STRICKEN and must be removed from the land records of St. Thomas-St. John as void and of no effect.
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

June 30, 2005

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Form S-8 File No. 333-118897 and File No.
333-113420 and Form F-3 File No. 333-111019 and File No. 333-119998, and the registration
statement on Form F-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2005
for the registration of 183,103,992 of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd.s ordinary
shares) of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd. of our report dated June 5, 2005, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd. included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 30, 2005.

| |  | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer,A member of Ernst & Young Global
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

Tel Aviv, Israel June 30,
2005



---

---
----

----

III Notices

European Defence Agency

----

NOTICE OF VACANCIES

(2004/C 220 A/01)

The European Defence Agency intends to recruit:

More information (available in English) and application forms may be obtained on the Council website at the following address: http://ue.eu.int (contacts/job offers)

Deadline: 1 October 2004, the postmark serving as proof.

----
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-834V Filed: October 6, 2017

Not to be Published

************************************* KENDRA CALVERT, Individually *

an d as N ext Friend of S.C., a Minor, *

* Petitioner, * Noti ce of voluntary dismissal;

* Order Concluding P roceed ings

v. * under Vaccine Rule 21(a) (1)(A) ; * diphtheria- tetanus

- acellular pertussis SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“Dtap”) vaccine reaction of seizures AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Gil L. Daley, II , Ft. Worth, TX, for petitioner. Ryan D. Pyles , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MI LLMAN, Special Master

O RDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On June 20, 2017, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 10 -34 (2012 ), alleging that diphtheria- tetanus

- acellular pertussis (“ Dtap ”) vaccine administered on June 25, 2014 caused her daughter a reaction, including seizures

. See Pet. Preamble and ¶ 1.

On October 6 , 2017, petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(a) (1)(A)

.

1 Because this Order Concluding Proceedings contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this Order Concluding Proceedings on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Govern ment Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services) . Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.2 DISCUSSION

Under Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1) (A), petitioner may engage in a voluntary dismissal by making a motio n for dismissal at any time before service of respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, which petitioner ha s done in the instant action

. Under Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3), the result of this voluntary dismissal is an Order Concluding Proceedings. No judgment will enter p ursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 21(a).

CONCLUSION

Th is petition is DISMISSED. Th e clerk of the court is directed to remove this case from the docket of the undersigned

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman

Special Master