alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0237n.06

Filed: March 30, 2005 No. 04-5266 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Quintin Qualls, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. MARK LUTTRELL, Sheriff, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Shelby County, Tennessee; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; JOSEPH PON TE, in his official capacity as Director of Shelby County Jail; GERALD STIPANUCK, in his personal and official capacity as a, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: MERRITT and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and DUPLANTIER, * District Judge.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this prisoner civil rights case for “deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety” brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court dismissed the case because the prisoner, who is complaining of spiders in his cell, failed to file a proper grievance at any step in the grievance process. On appeal, the prisoner has dismissed all parties to this case other than Sheriff Luttrell and Director Ponte, who were sued in their official capacities only, and who the prisonerNo. 04-5266 Qualls v. Luttrell

-2- claims were deliberately indiffere nt to his welfare because they knew the Shelby County Jail had a serious spider problem. The two remaining defendants, Luttrell and Pont e, are named only in their official capacities and not in their individual capacities. The suit s eeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. As to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, s overeign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a prison official in his official capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Jarvis v. Marcum , No. 03-5331, 2003 WL 22205080 (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2003). That portion of the prisoner’s suit that seeks declar atory relief is now moot because the prisoner has been moved to another facility. Therefore, the District Court did not err indismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
# National Family Week, 2005

Families give our society direction and purpose. During National Family Week, we celebrate the many contributions families make to our country.

Throughout America's history, families have been the foundation of our society and a source of stability and love for every generation. Strong families teach children to live moral lives and help us pass down the values that define a caring society. By nurturing a child's personal development and providing a safe environment for growth, families prepare our Nation's youth to realize the promise of America. Family is one of the three cornerstones of the Helping America's Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush. We are working with families, schools, and communities to help children make right choices and build healthy, successful lives. Through USA Freedom Corps, my Administration is also providing opportunities for families to volunteer together and make a positive difference in their communities.

At this crucial hour in the history of freedom, our Nation is grateful for the sacrifice of our military families who love and support the men and women of our Armed Forces. My Administration is committed to providing a better quality of life for our military families and helping them plan for the future. During National Family Week and throughout the year, Americans stand solidly behind the men and women of our Armed Forces and join all military families as they pray for the safety and strength of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and fathers and mothers.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 20 through November 26, 2005, as National Family Week. I invite the States, communities, and all the people of the United States to join together in observing this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor our Nation's families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-23332

Billing code 3195-01-P
# C_2011102EN.01000501.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 102/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17.12.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 485/10 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | Galicia |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ayudas Públicas-Galicia-Producciones o coproducciones en lengua gallega |
| Legal basis | La Ley 6/1999, de 1 de setiembre, del audiovisual de Galicia y las bases reguladoras para la concesión, en régimen de concurrencia competitiva, de subvenciones para producciones o coproducciones audiovisuales en lengua gallega |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Annual budget: EUR 4 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

17.12.2010

Reference number of State Aid

N 485/10

Member State

Spain

Region

Galicia

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ayudas Públicas-Galicia-Producciones o coproducciones en lengua gallega

Legal basis

La Ley 6/1999, de 1 de setiembre, del audiovisual de Galicia y las bases reguladoras para la concesión, en régimen de concurrencia competitiva, de subvenciones para producciones o coproducciones audiovisuales en lengua gallega

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 4 million

| | Overall budget: EUR 28 million |
| --- | --- |

Overall budget: EUR 28 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration (period)

until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

| Consellería de Cultura e Deporte |
| --- |
| Xunta de Galicia San Caetano s/n |
| 15702 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña) |
| ESPAÑA |

Consellería de Cultura e Deporte

Xunta de Galicia San Caetano s/n

15702 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña)

ESPAÑA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
NUMBER 13-23-00048-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE ROSALINDA RUIZ

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Relator Rosalinda Ruiz has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to 

stay in the above-referenced cause. By petition for writ of mandamus, relator contends 

that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) refusing to disqualify counsel for the real 

party in interest, and (2) granting discovery sanctions. By motion to stay, relator seeks to 

stay the jury trial of this matter, currently set for February 6, 2023, pending the resolution 

of this petition for writ of mandamus.
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to stay, is of the 

opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the motion to stay, and we order 

the jury trial set for February 6, 2023, to be stayed pending the resolution of this original 

proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting 

temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The Court requests the real 

party in interest, Maricela Huerta, individually and as next friend to E.H. and A.H., minors, 

or any others whose interest may be directly affected by the relief sought, to file a 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus within ten days from the date of this order. 

See id. R. 52.4, 52.8. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

2nd day of February, 2023.
#### B. B. Lewis, plaintiff in error, *vs.*R. C. Daniel, defendant in error.

1. It is in the discretion of the Judge of the Superior Court to consolidate two cases sued in that Court, into one, on the motion of defendant. Such discretion will not be interfered with unless abused.

2. This Court can review a decision as to the consolidation of cases, though the cases be pending below. (R.)

Consolidation of cases. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

A more extended statement of the facts than is contained in the opinion is unnecessary. A motion to dismiss this writ of error because the cases were still pending below, was overruled.

Whittle *&*Gustin, for plaintiff in error.

Defendants should not have to pay double costs: Code, section 3196 says cases “may” be consolidated. “May” means “shall:” Potters’ Dwarris on Statutes, 221, 223; Saunders’ Eeport, 58. The defense to both cases was the same as averred, and the motion was demurred to: 13 Ga. R., 201.

*125Lanier & Anderson, for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

This was a motion, by plaintiff in error, to consolidate two cases, brought against him by defendant in error. The one case was a suit on an agreement between them, as partners, whereby plaintiff in error bound himself, in certain contingencies, to refund money to defendant in error. The contingencies happened, and suit was brought. The other was a suit on a note, given by plaintiff in error to the defendant in error, *and for some*$300 *of rent,*collected by plaintiff in error for defendant in error. The petition was to consolidate the two cases, because “ said two papers sued on, in said two writs and suits, grew out of, and were hurriedly given finally to wind up and close said partnership.” The petition states “that the amount he (petitioner) justly owes said Daniels, if any at all, which he does not admit, is several thousand dollars less than the sums called for in said papers,” etc.; that the entries in the partnership-books, alleged to be in the hands of Daniels, and which he prays may be brought into Court, “ will greatly reduce and diminish the amount of said two papers,” etc. Nothing is said about the item of $300 rent, alleged to have been received by petitioner. The Court below refused to consolidate. "Whether because defendant failed to “ make it satisfactorily appear to the Court that the defense to *all*the demands was the same” or not, the record does not inform us. Certainly, it is not made to appear that the defense to the rent claim is the same with that relied on against the claims growing out of the partnership transaction. But we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion of the Judge of the Superior Court, in refusing to consolidate cases, unless there is a very plain case of abuse, to the detriment of the defendant.

Judgmeut affirmed.
**Exhibit10.3**

 

**MODIFICATION TO PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

WHEREAS, on July 3, 1995, Lee Pharmaceuticals(“maker”) and Sass DiSalvo (“Holder”) entered into an agreement (“Note”)whereby Lee Pharmaceuticals was to pay to Sass DiSalvo the sum of FiftyThousand Dollars; and

 

WHEREAS, on July 6, 1996, the parties thereto modifiedsaid Note to extend the maturity date from July 6, 1996, until December 8,1997, ( a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attached forreference as Exhibit A); and

 

WHEREAS, on December 8, 1997, the parties theretomodified said Note to extend the maturity date from December 8, 1997, untilDecember 1, 1998, (a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attachedfor reference as Exhibit B); and

 

WHEREAS, on December 1, 1998, the parties theretomodified said Note to extend the maturity date from December 1, 1998, untilJune 30, 1999, (a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attached forreference as Exhibit C); and

 

WHEREAS, on June 30, 1999, the parties theretomodified said Note to extend the maturity date from June 30, 1999, until June30, 2000, (a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attached forreference as Exhibit D); and

 

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2000, the parties theretomodified said Note to extend the maturity date from June 30, 2000, untilDecember 1, 2001, (a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attachedfor reference as Exhibit E); and

 

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2001, the parties heretomodified said Note to extend the maturity date from December 1, 2001, untilDecember 1, 2002, (a copy of said Modification to Promissory Note is attachedfor reference as Exhibit F); and

 

WHEREAS, the parties thereto now desire to furthermodify said Note and Modification;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties modify said Note andModification as follows:

 

1.             Thematurity date of the Note is extended from December 1, 2002, until December 1,2003.

 

2.             Allother terms and conditions of the Note remain the same.

 

Date this 27th day of November, 2002

 

 
|   | /s/ RONALD G. LEE   |
|--------|---------------------|
|   | Lee Pharmaceuticals |

 

----

 
|   | By:  Ronald  G. Lee, President |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                                |
|   | /s/ SASS DI SALVO                   |
|   | Sass DiSalvo                        |

 

2

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PHILLIP J. KENNEDY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv61/MCR/MD

JEAN-PERRIER SAKEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on May 21, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after reviewing

objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. WHEELER

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 243.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 24 January 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 24 January 1978.
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 10 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 16 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK Document 29 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### LICENSING BOARD v. WOODARD

No. 122 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 398.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 December 1975.
HMK/em FS 7747

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------X

THYSSEN KRUPP MATERIALS NA INC.

Plaintiff, 07 CV 3556 (LTS)

 ECF CASE

-against-

 

M/V FALCON TRADER, her engines, boilers, RULE 7.1 STATEMENT

tackle, etc., STX PAN OCEAN CO. LTD, 

SAGANA SHIPPING INC., AND 

VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------X

PURSUANT TO RULE 7.1, F.R.C.P. PLAINTIFFS CERTIFY THAT THE

FOLLOWING ARE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS OF 10% OF THE STOCK

WHICH IS PUBLICLY HELD AND HEREBY SETS FORTH PLAINTIFF’S PARENT

CORPORATION: THYSSENKRUPP AG

Dated: April 27, 2007

KINGSLEY, KINGSLEY & CALKINS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BY:____/S/_______________

 HAROLD M. KINGSLEY

 91 W. Cherry Street

 Hicksville, New York 11801

 (516) 931-0064 HK8660

Case 1:07-cv-03556-LTS Document 2 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03544-KMK-LMS Document 2 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03544-KMK-LMS Document 2 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
cnat-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”) made as of this 30th day of March, 2020, by and between CONATUS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as Sublessor) and REAL ESTATE OF THE PACIFIC DBA PACIFIC SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as Sublessee).

 

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2014, Sublessor, as Tenant, entered into a lease (which lease, including the First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated May 29, 2015, is hereinafter referred to as the "Master Lease") with The Point Office Partners, LLC, as Landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "Master Lessor"), which lease, concerns approximately 9,954 rentable square feet located in Suite 200 (the "Initial Premises") and 3,271 rentable square feet located in Suite 250 (the “Expansion Premises”, together with the Initial Premises, 13,225 rentable square feet referred to as the “Subleased Premises”) within that certain building located at 16745 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California (the “Building”); 

 

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2019, Sublessor and Sublessee entered into a Sublease Agreement (the “Sublease”) for the Subleased Premises; and

 

WHEREAS, Sublessor and Sublessee desire to amend the Sublease to modify the commencement for the sublease of the Expansion Premises.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Sublessor and Sublessee hereby agree as follows:

 

1. Defined Terms.  Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Sublease.  All references in this First Amendment to the “Sublease” shall be deemed to be references to the Sublease as amended by this First Amendment.

 

2. Expansion Premises Commencement Date. Effective as of the date hereof, all references in the Sublease to the Expansion Premises Commencement Date shall be deemed to be references to May 15, 2020.  

 

 

 

 

[The following page is the signature page.]




 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sublessor and Sublessee have duly executed this First Amendment effective as of the day and year first‐above written.

 


	
SUBLESSOR:
	
 
	
SUBLESSEE:

	
CONATUS PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
	
 
	
REAL ESTATE OF THE PACIFIC DBA

	
 
	
 
	
PACIFIC SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL

	
 
	
 
	
REALTY

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Keith W. Marshall, Ph.D., M.B.A.
	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Brian Arrington

	
Name:
	
 
	
Keith W. Marshall, Ph.D., M.B.A
	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
Brian Arrington

	
Title:
	
 
	
EVP, COO & CFO
	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
CEO

	
Date:
	
 
	
March 30, 2020
	
 
	
Date:
	
 
	
March 27, 2020
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00422

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding 324th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324

- 656801

- 19

Before Bassel, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### S.N. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the
opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : September 24, 2024
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CAESAR WHITE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:09cv574/LAC/EMT

SUSAN NELMS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

This cause brought pro se is before the court on Plaintiff’s response to the court’s order to

show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order

to pay the filing fee in full (see Docs. 14, 18, and 19). The court concludes that the reasons

advanced by Plaintiff in his response do not demonstrate good cause for his failure to comply. 

Nevertheless, to accord Plaintiff the leniency generally afforded pro se litigants, the court will give

Plaintiff one final opportunity to establish that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this

action by filing a fully and properly completed motion. Plaintiff is reminded that the Affidavit of

Financial Status is signed under penalty of perjury. In the alternative to filing an application to

proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff may pay the $350.00 filing fee in full. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk of court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the form for non-prisoner pro

se parties to request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This case number should be written on the

form.

2. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the filing fee of $350.00, or (2) submit a fully completed motion to proceed in forma

pauperis.
Page 2 of 2

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order as instructed will result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 rd day of May 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

 ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 3:09cv574/LAC/EMT
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, by and

through Bill McCollum, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER

Pro se non-party Steve Schonberg has filed a document titled “Motion of

Proposed Intervenor Steve Schonberg for Partial Admission to the Court’s CM/ECF

System” (doc. 38). It is unclear exactly what relief he is seeking. To the extent he

is asking that he be directly notified by email of “all filed documents” in this case,

the request must be denied as he is not a party to these proceedings. However, he

is free, of course, to access the docket and review all the documents himself. As

explained in my order dated April 15, 2010, access to the docket (via the CM/ECF

system) requires a PACER account with proper registration and fee payment.

The motion for partial admission to the CM/ECF system (doc. 38) must be,

and is, DENIED.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 39 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15074-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1