alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15112

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-00025-RWS

BRADLEY CHRISTOPHER STARK, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 14, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Bradley Stark appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against 

the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for sovereign 

immunity. We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction or for sovereign immunity de novo. King v. United States, 878 F.3d 

1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2018); Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 

572 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009). “In the face of a factual challenge to subject 

matter jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that jurisdiction exists.” 

OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the 

plaintiff must demonstrate an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign 

immunity. King, 878 F.3d at 1267.

Stark has not carried his burden here. He has not pointed to a statute that 

either conveys subject matter jurisdiction or unequivocally waives sovereign 

immunity1

. Stark argues that the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)

constitutes such a waiver; however, he points to no “agency action” that he is 

challenging, and so the provision does not apply in this case2

. 5 U.S.C. § 702. 

 1 To the extent that Stark argues that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) either conveys subject 

matter jurisdiction or waives sovereign immunity, we note that the FAA cannot provide subject 

matter jurisdiction, and it does not contain an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. See Moses 

H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 103 S.Ct. 927, 942 n.32 (1983).

2 The most that Stark can allege is the Attorney General’s inaction in response to his “offer” to 

arbitrate; however, “the only agency action that can be compelled under the APA is action 

legally required.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2379 (2004). Because 

the Attorney General was not legally required to respond to Stark’s offer to arbitrate, Stark does 

not allege agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Additionally, Stark argues that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA. However, Stark has not identified a viable 

federal claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 

The APA fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction for the same reason it fails to 

constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1533 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1533

          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2019

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``May 31, 2019'' and 
inserting ``December 1, 2020''.
    (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking ``May 31, 
2019'' and inserting ``December 1, 2020''.
    (c) Retroactive Effective Date.--If this Act is enacted after May 
31, 2019, the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take 
effect as if enacted on May 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.4

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

  In connection with the Annual report of J Net
Enterprises, Inc. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Steven L. Korby, Chief Financial Officer of
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

    (1)  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of
J Net Enterprises, Inc.;

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

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

Dated:  September 30, 2002    By:  /s/ Steven L. Korby
                                   _______________________
                                   Steven L. Korby
                                   Chief Financial Officer

  This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act,
be deemed filed by registrant for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
2007-Jun-14 01:05 PM Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 2127093100 3/4 

LAW OFFICES 

OF 

HOW-s. ROW ROBIN, HARRIS, KING, FODERA & RI IEFEY I H*BIIIs 

THOMAS I. KING ONE BATTERY PARK PLAZA 30* FL I(I(RAPD I. ~DEM NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004-1437: IEFFREY L IUCWMh . . . - - . . . TELEPHONE (212) 487-9701 WUIS I. SCHLPP 

STEVBNG. KOKUL4K FLY: (2 12) 425-0472 

mmm I. COWIA 

DUNX 

BW L. S. LlPERRm 

DcVIT.4 - 

MAWS. UBE MClUaP BECKLKY 

mm- H PLUNKETT 

DAWK 

VM-NTA. 

G~B~T 

BWM 

- 

PMlPaE4 llhM OREGORY D.Y. ROWS MEMO &b]DORS[4 

June 14,2007 

Via Fax (212) 805-7949 

Honorable P. Kevin Caste1 

United States District Court 

Southern District of New York 

500 Pearl Street 

New York, NY 10007 

Re: Garp Beckman v. Siemens Buildmg Technologies, Inc. 

Docket No.: 07 CV 03356 (PKC) (Fht)) 

Honorable Judge Castel: 

I represent the dekndant in the above case. I 

counsel, C %&iiGr 's case is scheduled for a 

tomorroT*e --~ 13 

This is a labor law penonal injury action. Plaintiff had previously commenced an action in 

Supreme Bronx, Beckman v. Momingside Heights, 15170/2005, for the same injuties. It is my 

understanding that Momingside Heights is the owner of the property. In that action, depositions 

are complete and physicals have been held Plaintiffrecentiy brought this action in Supreme Bronx 

against the purported gencral contractor, my 

action. The case was removed by the 

Very recently, my clmer has agreed to take over the defense of Siemens pursuant to our contcacr. 

We wish now to consolidate this action with the one in Supreme Bronx as that action was brought 

first, they cannot be brought into the Federal Court action and discovery is well into it's ha1 phases. 

I have spoken to plaintiffs counsel about this, and he agrees to continue the action against 

my client consolidated with his pre-existing action pen* in the Bronx Supreme Courthouse. I 

told him that Siemens agrees to amend the caption to be made a direct defendant in that action. We 

now turn to you to drrect us as to what procedurally must be donein t€us Courthouse. Please 

inform us if you still feel there is a need for the initial conference tomorrow, even though this case 

ultimarely will not stay in this Courthouse. Presumably some order would be necessary &om this 

Court either transferring the action or dmnksing it without prejudice to renew the action against my 

dient in the Bronx. 

, 

*A Legal Deparbnent of the Libeny Mutual Insurance Group 

7" 

Case 1:07-cv-03356-PKC Document 6 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
. - 

2007-Jun-14 01:06 PM Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 2127093100 

Thank you for pour attention to this matter. 

< 

Cyril Baines, Esq. 

Perecman & Fanning, PL.L.C 

250 West 57* Skeet, Suite 401 

New York, New Yor, 10107 

Fax: (212) 977-7035 

Case 1:07-cv-03356-PKC Document 6 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### CURRITUCK COUNTY v. WILLEY

No. 269PC

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 835

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 October 1980.
Description of Discretionary Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.27 
 Description of Discretionary Incentive Plan 
 The Company has a Discretionary Incentive Plan. Under the Discretionary Incentive Plan,
a method is provided for a direct link between eligible employee compensation and the Company’s annual performance. Awards under the Discretionary Incentive Plan are “at-risk” based on the performance of the Company, business unit
and/or location. Each Named Executive Officer (NEO) has a Discretionary Incentive Plan with an assigned target award opportunity, expressed as a dollar amount. The Discretionary Incentive Plan is individually tailored to the responsibility of the
eligible employee. Certain goals of the Discretionary Incentive Plan are linked to the Company’s annual growth objectives for revenues and earnings per share growth. Other goals focus on specific financial and operational targets that have been
determined by the Compensation Committee and/or Chief Executive Officer to be important for that particular employee to direct his attention to. Each performance goal is graded individually and the Discretionary Incentive Plan award represents the
total of the achievements on the individual performance goals. The Chief Executive Officer approves all individual Discretionary Incentive Plans except his own, which is approved by the Compensation Committee. The Discretionary Incentive Plan is
available to all NEOs and selected members of the Company’s senior management. Payouts of awards under the Discretionary Incentive Plan appear in the Summary Compensation Table under the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation”
column.
#### STATE v. DICKERSON

No. 94 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 736.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 April 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 17 April 1979.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 159 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 159

     To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born 
                       and preborn human person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2019

 Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hoeven, 
 Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Cramer, Mr. 
  Kennedy, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born 
                       and preborn human person.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Life at Conception Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

    To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born 
and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of 
Congress, including Congress' power under section 8 of article I of the 
Constitution of the United States to make necessary and proper laws, 
and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the 
Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life 
guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing 
in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman 
for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro 
fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another 
means of preventing fertilization.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Human person; human being.--The terms ``human person'' 
        and ``human being'' include each member of the species homo 
        sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of 
        fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an 
        individual member of the human species comes into being.
            (2) State.--For purposes of applying the 14th Amendment to 
        the Constitution of the United States and other applicable 
        provisions of the Constitution to carry out section 2, the term 
        ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
        of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Berry Plastics Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
James M. Kratochvil, the Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my 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
Registrant.





This
certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not
being filed as part of the Report.








/s/ James M.
Kratochvil


James M.
Kratochvil


Executive
Vice-President, Chief Financial


Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary





Date:   May
11, 2009
3

Enhanced Pre-deployment Evaluation (to be completed by the Emergency Responder) 

[created by the ERHMS Workgroup]

Date: 

Name: 

Date of Birth: 

Job Title: 

Employer: 

Job Location: 

Please answer each of the questions to the best of your knowledge:

1. Health Status (pre-deployment) 

a. Pre-existing medical and mental health conditions: 

b. Past surgeries/dates: 

2. Any Medical and/or Fitness concerns that you would like to be addressed 

3. Medications you presently take: 

4. Allergies (food, medicine, environmental): 
4

5. Substances: 

e. Alcohol Use (Amount per day): 

f. Smoking (number of cigarettes per day): 

g. Other drugs or substances (amount per day): 

6. Fitness Level: 

a. Height: inches 

b. Weight: 

c. BMI (to be determined by health care provider): 

d. Conditions that may impair your activities of daily living: 

e. Conditions that may limit your ability to perform strenuous activity:

f. Score on most recent physical fitness test (if applicable):

Score of out of a possible 

7. Job-specific Risk Factors: 

a. Do your emergency response activities potentially require you to wear respiratory 

protection?

Yes / No / Don’t know

b. Have you been fit-tested for an N95 respirator or other respiratory 

protection?

Yes / No / Don’t know

c. Do your emergency response responsibilities involve the potential or exposure to 

hazardous substances? If yes, please describe:

8. Vision corrected and uncorrected 

9. How is your hearing? Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor 
5

10. Do you have a history of: 

a. Chest pain? Yes / 

No b. Syncope? Yes 

/ No c. Abdominal pain? 

Yes / No d. Seizure disorder? 

Yes / No

e. Other medical / dental / or psychological conditions? Yes / 

No

If yes, please describe:

11. Have you received the following vaccinations? 

Vaccination Date last vaccination received 

(or date of final vaccination in 

series)

For all responders

Tetanus

Hepatitis B

Influenza

Pandemic Influenza

For selected responders

Pneumococcal Vaccine

Hepatitis A

Measles/Mumps/Rubella

Polio

Varicella

Rabies

Anthrax

Smallpox

 
6

12. Describe any functional and/or access needs that you may have due to some form of 

disability.

To be completed by Agency / Organization / or Employer:

13. Exposure Anticipation:

a. Anticipated deployment location (as specific as possible): 

b. Anticipated tasks to be performed (as specific as possible): 

c. Anticipated circumstances under which tasks will be performed (i.e., list of 

disaster types): 

d. Characteristics of expected work locations and relationship to known or 

suspected CBRN agents or conditions: 

____________________________________________________________________ 

14. Anticipated date of deployment: 

15. Anticipated duration of deployment:

16. Control anticipation:

a. Anticipated need for PPE? Yes / No

b. Anticipated type of PPE needed:

c. Adequacy of pre-incident training for tasks? Yes / No

d. Anticipated shift schedules:
#### STATE v. SCOTT

No. 212 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 617.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
Case 7:07-cv-03336-SCR Document 12 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 20-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 20-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 17 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 17 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Amendment No. 5 to License Agreement



 Exhibit 10.90 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 5 to License
Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
June, 2009 (“Effective Date”), by and between SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Georgia corporation having its principal office at 901 Sawyer Road, Marietta, Georgia 30062 (“Solvay”) and JPI COMMERCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Jazz Pharmaceuticals”), having its principal offices at 3180 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California 94304 (“JPI”). Solvay and
JPI are referred to herein on occasion separately as a “Party” or together as the “Parties”. Capitalized terms used herein shall have their respective meanings set forth in the License Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein.

 WHEREAS, Solvay and JPI are parties to that certain License Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of the 31
st day of January, 2007, as amended on March 12, 2008, October 17,
2008, December 19, 2008 and February 5, 2009; and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with
Section 13.6 of the Agreement to modify certain milestone payments that are due from JPI to Solvay; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises set forth in this Amendment, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment of Section 3.1(g). Section 3.1(g) of the
Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
 “(g) Six million dollars ($6,000,000) payable in 2009 in
five (5) installments as follows: one million dollars ($1,000,000) on or before March 15, 2009, which has been paid as of the Effective Date; one million dollars ($1,000,000) on or before August 15, 2009; one million dollars
($1,000,000) on or before September 15, 2009; one million dollars ($1,000,000) on or before October 15, 2009; and two million dollars ($2,000,000) on or before December 15, 2009;” 
 2. Acknowledgement. As of the Effective Date, Solvay acknowledges that Jazz Pharmaceuticals and/or JPI has made each and every installment payment pursuant to
Section 3.1(g) of the Agreement on or before the respective dates set forth therein and, as of the Effective Date, is still eligible to receive the installment payment reduction applicable to the December 15, 2012 payment, if it continues
to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 3.1. 
 3. No Other Changes. Except as set forth above, the Agreement remains in full force
and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 5 to License Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	JPI COMMERCIAL, LLC	 		 	SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/    Bob Myers
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/    Murray Kay

	Print Name:	 	 Bob Myers
	 		 	Print Name:	 	 Murray Kay

	Title:	 	 President
	 		 	Title:	 	 VP Finance
EXHIBIT 7

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 2 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 3 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 4 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 5 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 6 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 7 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 8 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 9 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 10 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 11 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 12 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 13 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 14 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 15 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 16 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 17 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 18 of 19
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-28 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 19 of 19
f;-& 

' * IJ SDC SDW. ! t 

t DOCUR.iE?X i 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 E[EC!'RC::ICi3A'Y T1B.D li 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YoRK I r nm +: I: 

i. -- I i 

---------------------------------- c- 

- X : ,..._..&.---,.,. ___"_., I.d.C_.*.-+.-~-d*-l_ 

IN RE: FOSADLqX PRODUCTS LIABILmTTY : 

LITIGATION 

MDL NO. 17E9 

1 : 06-md- 1789 (JFKj 

X 

This Document Relates to: ORDER 

All actlons 

- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Oral argument on Plaintiffs' notior: to compel 

production ~f documents will tdke plat-e at 1O:OG a.m. on 

June 2, 2008 in Court.room 20-C. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

May 21, 2008 

x, 1 JOHN F. KEENAN \ 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 30 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 1