alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
"_ _-.- -. -- " -A-._-_A-.... .-- -1. ---'- 't \ r. -- ~ ~ 

: ,, . \.. r s :,.-I){, :,;..:.LJ::. ! :. 

i. 

:- '- : : 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

IN RE: 

i MASTER FILE 

FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

i I :06-MD-I 789 (SFK) 

Tliis Dorrl~nor~ Hclilres To ,411 Actiolis 

CASE MANAGEblENT ORDER NO. 14 

(Regarding Motions to Remand) 

SOHN F. KEENAh1, Unitcd States 1)istricl .ludgc: 

It has beconic apparent that motions to remand \\zl~icli wcre filed in transfcror 

courts and rcmain pending belorc this Court. as well as thosc which are expcctcd to be filed in 

this Court. \rill raise overlapping challenges to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. In ordcr 

to resolve thcse jurisdiclional issues promptly and efficiently, it is hcreby ORDERED (hat: 

1. For cases transrerrcd to this Cou~t on or heforc March 1, 2008: All remand 

motions shall be served on the Defendant by March 31. 2008. DeTendant shall sen-c its responsc 

to thcse remand motions on or before April 21, 2008. Plaintiffs may servc a reply on or before 

May 2, 2008. On May 2, 2008, cach party shall file its molion papers and provide the Court 

\\it11 courtesy copies. Defendant also shall file on tlic master docket a list of all cascs with 

rcmand motions pending as of that datc. 

2. For cases transfcrred to this Court aftcr March 1, 2008: On thc last business 

day of Junc 2008 and aery sccond month thereafter, DeTendant shall notify thc Court of any 

ne\v remand motions that have been filed. Defcndant shall file and selvc papers in opposition 

thcreto within fourtecn days. PlaintiSfs affected by such motions may scrve and file rcply 

papers. and provide the Court with courtesy copies ofthcir motion papers, within fourteen days 

thereafter. 

SO ORDERED 

Daled: Ncw York. N.Y. 

Decenlbcr z./ , 200? 

- 

United States District Judse 

Case 1:07-cv-03462-JFK Document 19 Filed 12/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
# EUR-Lex - - EN

*|*

#

**List of credit rating agencies registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (CRA Regulation) **

*
Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0002 - 0002 *

List of credit rating agencies registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (CRA Regulation)

2011/C 148/02

According to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of 16 September 2009 (CRA Regulation), credit rating agencies are legal persons whose occupation includes the issuing of credit ratings on a professional basis. Credit rating agencies established in the Community have to apply for registration pursuant to Article 14(1) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of the CRA Regulation. Registration is granted by the competent authorities of the home Member State if all the requirements set out in the CRA Regulation are fulfilled. The registration shall be effective for the entire territory of the Community. According to Article 18(3) of the CRA Regulation, the Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union and on its website a list of credit rating agencies that have been registered. That list is updated within 30 days after the competent authority of the home Member State has notified the Commission of the registration. Credit rating agencies established in a third country that have been certified according to Article 5 of the CRA Regulation shall also be published in that list.

A registration/certification according to the CRA Regulation does not automatically include the recognition as External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) according to Part 2 of Annex VI to Directive 2006/48/EC.

Last update: 19 April 2011

Name of CRA | Address | Competent authority of home Member State | Date of decision by competent authority |

Euler Hermes Rating GmbH | Gasstraße 18 22761 Hamburg DEUTSCHLAND | Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) | 16.11.2010 |

Japan Credit Rating Agency Ltd | Jiji Building, 5-15-8 Ginza, Chuo-ku Tokyo 104-0061 JAPAN | Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) | 6.1.2011 |

Feri EuroRating Services AG | Rathausplatz 8-10 61348 Bad Homburg DEUTSCHLAND | Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) | 14.4.2011 |

--------------------------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

ROSA CRUZ-GONZALEZ 

 

v. Record No. 0016-15-2 

 

STAR VALLEY PAINTING CONTRACTORS AND 

 TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/ MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 THE HARTFORD PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 9, 2015 

RUFINO CRUZ CORTES 

v. Record No. 0017-15-2 

STAR VALLEY PAINTING CONTRACTORS AND 

 TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/ 

 THE HARTFORD 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (E. Wayne Powell; Powell Law Group, P.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (John S. Honeycutt; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Rosa Cruz-Gonzalez and Rufino Cruz Cortes (claimants) appeal a decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission finding their claims for workers’ compensation benefits 

are barred by the settlements of their third-party suits without the knowledge and consent of Star 

Valley Painting Contractors and Twin City Fire Insurance Company/The Hartford (collectively 

appellees). On appeal, claimants contend the commission erred in: (1) finding appellees carried 

their burden of proving their lack of knowledge and lack of consent to the settlement and 

prejudice to their lien; (2) denying claimants’ “Motion for Show Cause and to Exclude 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Evidence” based on the failure of Star Valley Painting Contractors (Star Valley) to appear or to 

provide materials in response to subpoenas; (3) finding there was prejudice to Twin City Fire 

Insurance Company (Twin City) “when there was a pending settlement of one of two third-party 

claims of which [appellees] had knowledge, so that the issue of prejudice was not ripe for 

determination;” (4) finding there was prejudice to Twin City when Twin City “did not accept its 

status as [Star Valley]’s carrier, and in fact contested both its responsibility to [Star Valley], and 

the compensability of the claims so that the issue of prejudice was not ripe for determination;” 

and (5) “allowing counsel to argue that The Hartford was prejudiced when Twin City had been 

declared the proper carrier, and there [was] no evidence of the corporate or insurance 

relationship between . . . The Hartford and Twin City, so that The Hartford did not have standing 

in the case.” 

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that these appeals 

are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Cortes v. Star Valley Painting Contractors, VWC File No. VA02000012553 (Dec. 

8, 2014); Cruz-Gonzalez v. Star Valley Painting Contractors, VWC File No. VA02000012555 

(Dec. 8, 2014). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-3 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-3 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-3 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-3 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-3 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 5 of 5
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 5) PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Paul Gerard Turner, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 5) PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement. By:
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    DirectorDate:
    June 30, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cr08-SPM

DONTAE PRATT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, DONTAE PRATT, to Counts One

and Two of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before

this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                   ------------

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc
S. Hermelin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date:  August 11, 2008                         /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
                                      --------------------------------------
                                                  Marc S. Hermelin
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
#### WALTERS v. WALTERS

No. 30PA82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 545.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 May 1982.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ROSCOE DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00008-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 23, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, be

affirmed. The time for filing objections has passed, and none have been filed. Upon

consideration, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ properly relied upon the

plaintiff’s past relevant work as an office helper while on work release, and also properly found

that plaintiff could perform other jobs. Moreover, the Court agrees that substantial evidence

supported the ALJ’s decision that plaintiff’s complaints regarding the severity of his pain were

not credible. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, is affirmed. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00008-MP-GRJ Document 24 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.21
PVH CORP.
SCHEDULE OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS' FEES 
EFFECTIVE JUNE 20, 2019
BOARD




	
			
	Annual member fee
	$95,000
	Retainer

	Equity Award - Restricted Stock Units
	$160,000 value
	This award is targeted to equal the number of restricted stock units with a value of approximately $160,000 as of the date of grant.

	Presiding Director Fee
	$40,000
	Retainer






AUDIT & RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE




	
			
	Fee to chair
	$40,000
	Retainer

	Fee to member
	$20,000
	Retainer






COMPENSATION COMMITTEE




	
			
	Fee to chair
	$35,000
	Retainer

	Fee to member
	$15,000
	Retainer






NOMINATING, GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE




	
			
	Fee to chair
	$25,000
	Retainer

	Fee to member
	$10,000
	Retainer






CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE




	
			
	Fee to chair
	$25,000
	Retainer

	Fee to member
	$10,000
	Retainer








All meeting-related expenses will be reimbursed to non-employee Directors.
Walter Mortgage s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** October 23, 2014 N o. 04 - 14 - 00707 - CV Melissa BROQUET and John Broquet, Appellants v. WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY , Appellee From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas Trial Court No. DC - 12 - 60 - A Judge Robert Blackmon, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER Appellant filed two notices of appeal seeking to appeal a trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. The order was severed from the original cause number DC - 12 - 60 and assigned cause number DC - 12 - 60 - A. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in both the original cause number, which was assigned appeal number 04 - 14 - 00706 - CV, and in the severed cause number, which was assigned appeal number 0 4 - 14 - 00707 - CV. Because the notice of appeal was appropriately filed in the severed cause number, it is ORDERED that appeal number 04 - 14 - 00706 - CV shall be administratively closed, and the appeal shall proceed in appeal number 04 - 14 - 00707 - CV.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have he reunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of October, 2014 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
---

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gerhard Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer of Rockwell Diamonds 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:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 20-F/A2 of the Company for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010 (the “Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | By:    | /s/ GJ Jacobs          
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Gerhard Jacobs         
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | January 28, 2011       

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. A2 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.

---
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1971 

To require auto dealers to fix outstanding safety recalls before selling, leasing, 

or loaning a used motor vehicle. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require auto dealers to fix outstanding safety recalls 

before selling, leasing, or loaning a used motor vehicle. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Used Car Safety Recall 

5 Repair Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USED MOTOR VEHICLE CONSUMER PROTECTION. 

7 Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(k) LIMITATION ON THE SALE, LEASE, OR LOAN OF

10 USED MOTOR VEHICLES.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1971 IS

1 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

2 ‘‘(A) DEALER.—Notwithstanding section 

3 30102(a)(2), the term ‘dealer’ means a person 

4 that has sold not less than 10 motor vehicles to 

5 1 or more consumers during the most recent 

6 12-month period. 

7 ‘‘(B) USED MOTOR VEHICLE.—The term 

8 ‘used motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle that 

9 has previously been purchased other than for 

10 resale. 

11 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—Except as provided under 

12 paragraphs (3) and (4), a dealer may not sell, lease, 

13 or loan a used motor vehicle until after any defect 

14 or noncompliance determined under section 30118 

15 with respect to the vehicle has been remedied. 

16 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (2) shall not 

17 apply if— 

18 ‘‘(A) the recall information regarding the 

19 used motor vehicle— 

20 ‘‘(i) was not available at the time of 

21 sale or lease using the means established 

22 by the Secretary under section 31301 of 

23 the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

24 Century Act (49 U.S.C. 30166 note; Pub25 lic Law 112–141); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1971 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) was not available on the website 

2 of the manufacturer; or 

3 ‘‘(B) notification of the defect or non4 compliance is required by an order issued by 

5 the Secretary under section 30118(b)(2), but 

6 enforcement of the order is set aside in a civil 

7 action to which section 30121(d) applies. 

8 ‘‘(4) RULEMAKING.—The Secretary, by rule, 

9 may exempt from paragraph (2) the auctioning of a 

10 used motor vehicle to dealers if the exemption does 

11 not harm public safety.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

13 This Act shall take effect on the date that is 18 

14 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Asia4sale.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2000, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Eric Montandon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 and belief:

|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

/s/ Eric Montandon

Eric Montandon

Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

January 23, 2006

This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for
the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This
certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written
statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES ARNOLD JORDAN GARMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv25/WS/EMT

PATRICK HAMMERGREN, P.A.

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On January 28, 2010, this court

entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the filing fee in the amount of $350.00 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to respond to the

order; therefore, on March 8, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause,

within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order

of the court (Doc. 7). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed Plaintiff

has not paid the filing fee or submitted a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 1st day of April 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv25/WS/EMT