alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KELLY WHISBY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv171/RS-AK

JOHN DOE, et al,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc 1) and a Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 5). Upon review of the Complaint and court records from this Court and the

Middle District of Florida, the Court finds that this Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which was enacted on April 26, 1996,

provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed in the Middle District of

Florida on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim: Case No.

3:09cv1178, dismissed on December 8, 2009, as frivolous; Case No. 3:09cv1257, dismissed on

December 28, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1015(e)(2)(B), generally; Case No. 3:10cv151,
Page 2 of 2

dismissed on February 23, 2010, as frivolous; and Case No. 3:10cv152, dismissed on February

26, 2010, as frivolous. Pending in this district is Case No. 5:10cv173-RS/MD, wherein it has

been recommended that the case be dismissed because Plaintiff has three strikes and he failed to

allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

The instant complaint alleges that Plaintiff was the victim of excessive force on August

29, 2006, by three John Does prior to his being transferred out of the state. Under these set of

facts, it cannot be said that he is under any imminent or serious danger, and therefore, his

allegations do not bring him within the "imminent danger" exception. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5) is denied.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file another complaint making

the same allegations for which he pays the full $350.00 filing fee at the time of filing the

complaint.

ORDERED on August 11, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10-cv-00171-RS-AK
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS B. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv99/MCR/MD

ESCAMBIA COUNTY,

Defendant.

___________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

commenced this action on April 1, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint and a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion

was found to be deficient and he was given twenty-eight (28) days to file another

motion or to pay the filing fee of $350.00 (doc. 4).

After receiving no response from plaintiff, this court entered an order on May

20, 2010 giving plaintiff twenty one (21) days to show why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (doc. 5). To date, plaintiff

has failed to comply with this court’s orders or explain his inability to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute

and failure to comply with an order of the court.

2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24 day of June, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

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 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, and does

not control. 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv99/MCR/MD
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1





PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION 
2020 FISCAL YEAR COMPENSATION PROGRAM  
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


		
	A.
	Amounts of 2020 Fiscal Year Compensation


	
			
	•
	Annual Board Retainer (cash):
	$50,000

	 
	 
	 

	•
	Additional Annual Non-Executive Chairman Retainer (cash):
	$50,000

	 
	 
	 

	•
	Committee fees (cash):
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Audit Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

	 
	 
	$20,000 for Members

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Nominating and Corporate 
Governance Committee:
	$12,500 for Chair 

	 
	 
	$10,000 for Members

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Compensation Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

	 
	 
	$15,000 for Members

	 
	 
	 

	 
	M&A Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

	 
	 
	$15,000 for Members




Equity Component:
		
	•
	$200,000 to be delivered in one installment (as set forth below under “Timing”), consisting of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”).  




		
	•
	The number of DSUs to be issued will be determined by dividing $200,000 by the fair market value of Company common stock on the date of issuance.  The DSUs will vest in a single installment on the date of the 2021 Annual Meeting, subject to continued service on the Board thru such date, with full acceleration upon a change in control. 




		
	•
	DSUs will accrue dividends on the same basis as Company common stock and will be reinvested in additional DSUs.




		
	•
	DSUs, together with dividends credited on those DSUs, will be settled upon a Director’s separation from service from the Board of Directors or change in control, if earlier, and not upon vesting.  At such time, DSUs will be paid out in the form of Company common stock.  






1




Timing
		
	•
	Annual fiscal year cash compensation will be paid in one installment at the Compensation Committee meeting in June or, promptly following the date of the 2020 Annual Meeting, whichever is earlier, or such other date as determined by the Compensation Committee.  




		
	•
	Amounts paid will be pro-rated for partial year service, with a fractional month of service rounded to a whole month.  A Director who joins the Board other than on the first day of the fiscal year will be paid a pro-rated amount of the annual fiscal year compensation.  The same proration rule will also apply to any partial year service on any committee.




B.    Stock Retention Guidelines
All non-employee Directors must hold a number of shares of the Corporation’s common stock having a fair market value equal to at least five times the Annual Cash Retainer, which for purposes of this requirement shall include vested DSUs.  Directors have five years to attain this guideline from the date of election to the Board.


C.    Miscellaneous
Employee Directors shall not be entitled to participate in the 2020 Director Compensation Plan.


2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65042-65046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5748]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA 225-07-7001]


Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Association of American Feed Control Officials

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the Association of 
American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The purpose of this MOU is to 
facilitate FDA's collaboration with AAFCO in the AAFCO New and Modified 
Ingredient Definition Process by clarifying the responsibilities of FDA 
and AAFCO in defining feed ingredients, in providing mechanisms for 
resolving disputes that may arise, and in providing mechanisms for 
modifying the ingredient definition process when required.

DATES:  The agreement became effective August 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sharon Benz, Division of Animal Feeds 
(HFV-220), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug 
Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6864.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: November 12, 2007.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 65043]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19NO07.016


[[Page 65044]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19NO07.017


[[Page 65045]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19NO07.018


[[Page 65046]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19NO07.019

[FR Doc. 07-5748 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                Percentage Owned
Name                                              Jurisdiction of Organization                    by Registrant
------                                            ----------------------------                    -------------
<S>                                               <C>                                           <C>
Rogue Wave Software GmbH                                   Germany                                  100%
Inmark Development Corporation                           California                                 100%
Rogue Wave Software UK LTD                             United Kingdom                               100%
HotData, Inc.                                             Delaware                                   21%
Stingray Software, Inc.                                North Carolina                               100%
NobleNet, Inc.                                            Delaware                                  100%
</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.1


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between ONCOSEC
MEDICAL INCORPORATED (the “Company”) and DANIEL J. O’CONNOR (the “Executive”), effective
as of the date of execution.


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive have entered into an executive employment agreement dated November 7, 2017 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to increase the term of Executive’s employment pursuant to the terms
and conditions contained in the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


 


The
Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of Section III.A and replacing it with the following:


 


“A.
Initial Term and Renewal. Effective as of April 15, 2020, the initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of
two (2) years commencing on the Commencement Date (the “Initial Term”) and, commencing at the end of
the Initial Term, shall be extended automatically for successive one (1) year periods (the Initial Term and any extensions being
collectively referred to as the “Employment Term”), unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions
of Section IV or V below.”


 


Except
as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. This Amendment and the Agreement, as previously
amended, when construed together, constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters addressed herein.


 


(Signature
on following page)


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


EXECUTED
on the 15th day of April, 2020.


 


	EXECUTIVE:	 	ONCOSEC
    MEDICAL INCORPORATED
	 	 	 
	/s/
    Daniel J. O’Connor	 	/s/
    Dr. Avtar Dhillon
	Daniel
    J. O’Connor 	 	Dr.
    Avtar Dhillon
	 	 	Chairman
    of the Board of Directors


 




    	 	- 2 -
#### GOARD v. BRANSCOM

No. 159 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 34.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT MASON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00182-MP-WCS

B CUNNINGHAM, NESVITT, L WATKINS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, recommending that this case be transferred. The time for filing objections has passed,

and none have been filed. The Court agrees that this case should be transferred. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein.

This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Florida, Jacksonville Division.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000200

18-OCT-2017

11:13 AM
gofba_ex1011.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.11
 
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE
 
This Amendment No. 1 to Promissory Note (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective the 5th day of March, 2020, by and between Sunray Trust (the “Holder”), and Gofba, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”).
 
RECITALS
 
WHEREAS, the Company is the maker under that certain promissory note dated May 1, 2018 in the original principal amount of $1,284,697, executed in favor of the Holder (collectively, the “Note”);
 
WHEREAS, all principal and interest due under the Note were due to the Holder on January 1, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”);
 
WHEREAS, no payment has been made under the Note, and the Holder and the Company desire to modify the terms of the Note to extend the Maturity Date as set forth herein.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
 
1. The principal and any unpaid accrued interest on the Note shall be due and payable on or before 5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on January 1, 2022 (the “New Maturity Date”).
 
2. Interest shall continue to accrue at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum, simple interest, until all unpaid principal and interest is paid in full. 
 
3. As consideration for the extension of the Maturity Date on the Note, the Company agrees to pay a fee in the amount of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the original principal amount, payable on the New Maturity Date (the “Loan Fee”). Holder agrees to waive the Loan Fee in the event that the Company does not Default (as defined in the Note and as modified herein) on its payment obligations set forth in the Note and this Amendment.
 
4. Other than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.
 
	 
	1
	 

	 

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first set forth above.
 
	“Company”
	 
	“Holder”
	 

		 
	 
	 

	Gofba, Inc.,
	 
	Sunray Trust
	 

	a California corporation
	 
		 

	 
	 
	 
	 

		 
		 

	By: William DeLisi
	 
	By: Anna Chin
	 

	Its: Chief Executive Officer
 
	 
	Its: Trustee
	 


 
	 
	2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 25 , 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00274

- CR

Jose Flores HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1980CR1362W

Honorable Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED

FOR LACK OF JURISDIC TION.

It is so ORDERED on July 25 , 2018

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on thi s 25 th day of July, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                               32,346,290
<SECURITIES>                            970,701
<RECEIVABLES>                         9,902,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           5,755,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     49,305,912
<PP&E>                                2,702,948
<DEPRECIATION>                       (1,023,153)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       57,640,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 3,507,489
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 25,609
<OTHER-SE>                           54,034,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         57,640,811
<SALES>                               5,239,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      6,755,463
<CGS>                                 2,481,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         2,481,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      3,984,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       44,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         289,002
<INCOME-TAX>                             95,961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     174,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            174,891
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.01


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv261-SPM/WCS

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated July 9, 2010 (doc. 6). Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a motion to present evidence (doc. 7), which was denied

(doc. 11), and three statements of fact (docs. 8, 9, 10). The Court has reviewed

the materials and they are unintelligible. 

I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 6) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:10cv261-SPM/WCS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SYLVIA ARDLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00185-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 28, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant

to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree to the amount

of fees.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s attorney fees to be reasonable and that the $125.00 statutory

cap should be increased to account for increases in the cost of living, which have occurred since

§ 2412(d)(2)(A) was amended in 1996. The Plaintiff’s counsel also expended a reasonable

number of total hours.

Defendant will inquire with the Department of Treasury as to whether or not the Plaintiff

has a debt owed to the United States. If such a debt is owed, the EAJA fee award is subject to

offset for the debt owed. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010). Defendant will

request, following that offset, that the Department of Treasury make payable directly to the

Plaintiff any remaining amount beyond what is owed to the United States. If no debt is owed to

the United States, Defendant will request that the Department of Treasury make the EAJA fees

payable to the assignee. Accordingly, it is
Page 2 of 2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees under EAJA in the amount of $1,008.10, subject to any

offsetting debt owed by the Plaintiff to the United States. If the agreement between

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel is such that these fees are assigned to Plaintiff Counsel,

any fees or partial fees received by the Plaintiff are to be considered held in trust for, and

payable to, Plaintiff's Counsel.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:09-cv-00185-MP -GRJ