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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MELISSA A. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv403/RS-MD

CALHOUN-LIBERTY HOSPITAL

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the mediation settlement report (Doc. 43). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 

16.2(D), IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement between these parties is not consummated, the 

Court reserves jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days 

of the date of this Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and 

reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file for administrative purposes, and upon the 

expiration of 120 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case 

in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on July 19, 2010.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| EXHIBIT 13.1                                  |
|                                          |
| CERTIFICATION OF                              |
| CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                       |
| PURSUANT TO                                   |
| 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                       |
| AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                        |
| SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |

 

I, Dr. Declan Doogan, Chief Executive Officer of Portage Biotech Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(i) the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

| Date: 

July 28, 2015 

 

 

  

/s/ Declan Doogan

 

 

By: 

Dr. Declan Doogan 

Title: 

Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

*This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.* |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Jul 16 07 12:49p MYERS b GRLIRRDO LLP 

MYERS & GALIARDO, LL 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

TELEPHONE 

l212l SeG.5900 

CHANIN BUILDING CHAhitc! ''5 01 

22 EAST 92NO STREET. SUITE 2710 I-- I~~~fiP~ ' I P:,~I~Q~#,~~S!MI)E 

NEW YORK. NY 10168 ,zrziibm-s,sn J 

MEMO ENDORSED July 16, 2C07 

BY FAX (212-805-7917) 

Honorable Robert P. Patterson 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

Cnitcd States Courthouse 

500 Peul St.. Room 2550 

Ncw Yurk. NY 10007 

USDC SDNY 

DOCUMENT 

EJ..ECI'RONICALT,Y FILED 

Re: Amilcer v. City of New York, A. 

07 CV 3554 (RPP) 

Dear Judge Patterson: 

P 

Plcase he advised that this oitice represents the plaintifl.in the abuve matter. 

which is scheduled for an iilitial Confercnce hefore Your Ho~ior tomorrow. July 17. 2007 

at 9:00 a.m. Plcasc consider this leuer a request to ndjn~lrn thr '.nntkrcnr.e on~ll Alrgr~st 

15, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. I an joined in this letter by counsel ibr the defendants. Assistant 

Corporation Counsel Anna Nguyen. 

We are writing at the suggestion of your clerk, Robert Monreagudo. The reason 

for the request is that a prior extension or time for the defendants to answer was gl-anled, 

up until August 3, 2007. The conference date had been sct prior lo this extensio~i ot'tlie 

time to answer. The parties believe that the confercncc will he more prodnctive after the 

defendant lisve mawered. 

'l'hwk you very much i'or you conside~-ation of this rcqucst. I 

Very truly yours. 1 

cc: Anna Nguyen. Esq. 

(by fax, 212-786-9776) 

Uricdy 

Case 1:07-cv-03554-RPP Document 8 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT A LOVEDAY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00014-MP -WCS

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 26, a Motion for Extension of Time to File an

Attorney's Fee Request Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Previously, the Court entered a

judgment directing the Commissioner to award benefits to the Plaintiff. Absent a court order

stating otherwise, a successful Plaintiff’s counsel has fourteen days after final judgment to file a

motion with the District Court requesting an award of attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d)(2)(B). This Rule has been interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit to even apply to a request

for fees to be paid from Plaintiff’s past due benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Bergen

v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2006). However, Plaintiff's counsel in such

a case will not know the amount of benefits - and therefore fees - until after the Commissioner

awards benefits, which typically takes longer than fourteen days after the entry of judgment. 

Therefore, an extension of time to seek such fees is warranted, and was recommended by the

Bergen opinion. Id. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Pursuant to Bergen, proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. § 406(b) are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. The
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00014-MP -WCS

Plaintiff shall file a motion to award fees under 406(b) within 30 days after counsel

receives notice from the Defendant Commissioner as to Plaintiff’s past due benefits.

This stay relates only to attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social Security

Act, not to attorney fee proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §

2412, the latter of which may be adjudicated at this time. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1
 COMPANYS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 2) PLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of Notes for the period between January 1, 2006 and the end of
the Issuers fiscal year on December 31, 2006.
  th
 By:
    
    /s/ Jonathon William AlbrightName: Jonathon William AlbrightTitle: Director
 - 29 -
#### STATE v. GATEN

No. 41 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 273.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 November 1981.
#### STATE v. LITTLE

No. 54.

Reported: 286 N.C. 185.

Petition by defendant to rehear denied 10 January 1975.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JULIE SAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1975

[November 4, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Elizabeth Anne Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-

004577CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuńa, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         115,393
<SECURITIES>                                    18,453
<RECEIVABLES>                                  412,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    537,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,469,739
<PP&E>                                       1,556,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                 938,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,601,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,295,550
<BONDS>                                         93,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,053
<COMMON>                                        46,318
<OTHER-SE>                                     779,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,601,289
<SALES>                                      1,575,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,575,639
<CGS>                                        1,230,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,230,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                116,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,244
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
        

</TABLE>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Notices 57535 

84See, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 

223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Eli Lilly 

& Co., 90 F.2d 943, 945, 14 USPQ2d 1741, 1743 

(Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Once the applicant has presented 

rebuttal evidence, Office personnel 

should reconsider any initial 

obviousness determination in view of 

the entire record.84 All the rejections of 

record and proposed rejections and their 

bases should be reviewed to confirm 

their continued viability. The Office 

action should clearly communicate the 

Office’s findings and conclusions, 

articulating how the conclusions are 

supported by the findings. The 

procedures set forth in MPEP § 706.07(a) 

are to be followed in determining 

whether an action may be made final. 

See MPEP § 2145 concerning 

consideration of applicant’s rebuttal 

evidence. See also MPEP § 716 to 

§ 716.10 regarding affidavits or 

declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.132 

for purposes of traversing grounds of 

rejection. 

Dated: October 3, 2007. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. E7–19973 Filed 10–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–09] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–09 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 3, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
57536 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN10OC07.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Notices 57537 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN10OC07.008</GPH>
57538 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN10OC07.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Notices 57539 

[FR Doc. 07–4974 Filed 10–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN10OC07.010</GPH>
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 23-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 18 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 6-2 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 6-2 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 6-2 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 6-2 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 4 of 4
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 3, 2015

s0126

Order 

Clerk

February 3, 2015

149198

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149198

COA: 319506

Macomb CC: 1984-000602-FC

GEORGE JURICH,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
Case 1:06-cv-15071-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1
 Certifications
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lancaster Colony Corporation;
and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
 Date: August 28, 2008
    By:
    /s/ John B. Gerlach, Jr.John B. Gerlach, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RHONDA DUBLAK,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:10cv14/RH/MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint for judicial review of an adverse administrative

decision of the defendant and has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc.

3). It affirmatively appears that leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be

granted. However, before service can be directed, plaintiff must submit service

copies of her complaint.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 3) is granted and this case

may be filed and the pleadings may be served without the prepayment of costs to the

plaintiff as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2. Plaintiff shall submit three services copies of her complaint within 14

days.

3. Upon receipt of the copies of the complaint, the clerk of court is

directed to send three certified copies of this order, the service copies of the

complaint, and the prepared USM 285 forms to the United States Marshal. 

4. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and

summons upon Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, the Attorney
Page 2 of 2

General of the United States, and the office of the United States Attorney for this

District by certified mail. 

5. After a response to the complaint has been filed by the defendant, the

plaintiff shall be required to mail to the attorney for the defendant a copy of every

pleading or other paper, including letters, submitted for consideration by the court. 

The plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the clerk of court

a certificate stating the date a correct copy of the paper was mailed to each

defendant or to the attorney representing each defendant. Any paper submitted for

filing after a response to the complaint has been filed by the defendants which does

not contain a certificate of service shall be returned by the clerk and disregarded by

the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of March, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv14/RH/MD
#### LOVE v. PRESSLEY

No. 14 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 503.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1
 COMPANYS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 7) PLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of Notes for the period between January 1, 2006 and the end of
the Issuers fiscal year on December 31, 2006.
  th
 By:
    
    /s/ Jonathon William AlbrightName: Jonathon William AlbrightTitle: Director
 - 29 -
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

PENINSULA GAMING, LLC
| **NAME**                         | ** ** | **DOMESTIC JURISDICTION** |
|----------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|
|                             |       |                           |
| Peninsula Gaming Corp.           |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo, LLC                  |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| The Old Evangeline Downs, L.L.C. |       | Louisiana                      |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth Holdings, LLC   |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth, LLC            |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth Corp.           |       | Delaware                       |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 5 of 5
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Felipe Guzman Garcia v. Silvia Perales Diaz a/k/a Silvia Perales

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00560

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 39265

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County

This Court abated the appeal and directed t he trial court to hold a hearing on appe I lant’s statement of inability to afford court costs. A supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record were filed on May 7, 2020. The reporter’s record contained an oral ruling denying appellant’s statement of inability, but the supplemental clerk’s record contains no written order. Absent a written order, the Court must conclude that appellant is unable to afford court costs on ap peal. See

T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145(a); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a).

Accordingly, the Court requests clarification of whether the trial court has signed a written order concerning appellant’s statement of inability. If the trial court has signed a written order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing that order should be filed within 10 day of the date of this

order . If no order has been signed, the district clerk shall notify this Court of that fact within 10 days of the date of this order

.

I t is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___ Justice Peter Kelly

_____________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ May 25, 2021

____