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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, an individual, 

NED NEWCOMER, an individual, and 

JERALD ADLER, an individual, on their 

own behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

INTEGRACLICK, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, d/b/a Clickbooth, JUST 

THINK MEDIA, a Canadian company, 

d/b/a FAREND SERVICES LIMITED, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________/

Case No. 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, the undersigned, 

counsel of record for Defendant 1021018 Alberta Ltd., d/b/a JustThink Media 

(“Defendant”), hereby submits its Corporate Disclosure Statement. 

The undersigned certifies that the following is a full and complete list of all 

parties in this action, including any parent corporation and any publicly held 

corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock of a party: 

Case 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS Document 4 Filed 11/03/10 Page 1 of 3
2

As of this date, other than the named parties, there is no such interest to 

report. 

These representations are made to enable the judges of the Court to evaluate 

possible disqualification or recusal. 

Dated: November 3, 2010 KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP 

By: /s/ Karl S. Kronenberger 

Karl S. Kronenberger 

Attorney in Charge; admitted pro hac vice 

150 Post Street, Suite 520 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 955-1155 

Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 

karl@KBInternetLaw.com 

Attorney for Defendant, 

1021018 Alberta Ltd., d/b/a JustThink Media 

 

Case 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS Document 4 Filed 11/03/10 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 3, 2010, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which 

will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following attorneys 

of record: 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 

David P. Healy 

2846-B Remington Green Cir. 

Tallahassee, FL 32308 

Email: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 

Will Haselden 

Christopher L. Dore 

KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 

350 Northn LaSalle, Suite 1300 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Email: cdore@edelson.com 

Email: whaselden@kamberedelson.com 

Dated: November 3, 2010 KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP 

By: /s/ Karl S. Kronenberger 

Karl S. Kronenberger 

Attorney in Charge; admitted pro hac vice 

150 Post Street, Suite 520 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: (415) 955-1155 

Facsimile: (415) 955-1158 

karl@KBInternetLaw.com 

Attorney for Defendant, 

1021018 Alberta Ltd., d/b/a JustThink Media

Case 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS Document 4 Filed 11/03/10 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit
10(g)**
 AMENDMENT
 TO
 EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
  This
Amendment to Employment Agreement is entered into effective as of the
11 th day of
May, 2001, by and between TXU Corp., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), and M.
S. Greene, an individual (“Employee”).
  WHEREAS,
the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as
of July 1, 2000 (“Employment Agreement”); and
  WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the Term
thereof by one (1) year such that the Term shall expire on June 30,
2004.
  NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein and in the
Employment Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:
  1.
    Extension
      of Term.
      Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the
      date “June 30, 2003” with the date “June 30, 2004”, and, as amended, said
      Section 2 shall be and read in full as
follows:
  “2. Term : This
Employment Agreement shall commence as of the date first set forth above and,
unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof, shall expire on
June 30, 2004 (“Term”).”
  2.
    Continued
      Effectiveness of Employment Agreement.
      Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain
      in full force and effect.
  3.
    Governing
      Law.
      This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
      laws of the State of Texas.
  Executed
effective as of the 11th day of May, 2001.
  TXU
CORP.        EMPLOYEE:
  By:
/s/  Erle
Nye                                                      /s/     
M. S.
Greene
 Erle Nye,
Chairman of the Board    M. S.
Greene
 and Chief
Executive
Exhibit 12(e)Entergy New Orleans, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred DividendsTwelve Months EndedDecember 31,
June 30,2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$17,786
$16,610
$13,555
$19,329
$21,497
$19,160Interest applicable to rentals
910
644
426
527
407
438Total fixed charges, as defined
18,696
17,254
13,981
19,856
21,904
19,598Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
1,686
1,545
1,172
2,501
1,745
1,787Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$20,382
$18,799
$15,153
$22,357
$23,649
$21,385Earnings as defined:Net Income
$7,859
$28,072
$1,250
$5,344
$24,582
28,992Add:Provision for income taxes:Total
5,875
16,868
1,790
5,051
13,506
17,132Fixed charges as above
18,696
17,254
13,981
19,856
21,904
19,598Total earnings, as defined
$32,430
$62,194
$17,021
$30,251
$59,992
$65,722Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
1.73
3.60
1.22
1.52
2.74
3.35Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
1.59
3.31
1.12
1.35
2.54
3.07------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PATRICIA KAREN MCLEAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:11cv46/MCR/MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated February 17, 2012 (doc. 17). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No timely objections have

been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, I have

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

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. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

3. This cause is DISMISSED and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00046-MCR-MD Document 18 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ONSITE HEALTHCARE 

SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-237-RS -GRJ

CASSI LAYNE, TONY LAYNE 

and SENIOR DENTAL CARE, LLC, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Compel, Motion For

Sanctions And Motion To Exclude (Doc. 34) to which Plaintiff has filed a Response.

(Doc. 37.) Defendants request the Court to enter an order compelling Defendants to

produce certain documents and awarding sanctions against Plaintiff including excluding

documents, testimony and witnesses. Plaintiff has filed a response addressing the

particular discovery requests in dispute. In addition Plaintiff points out that because

there was insufficient time for counsel to meet and confer before the motion was filed a

number of issues in dispute were not resolved that could have and should have been

resolved by the parties. As a general practice the Court would have directed the parties

to meet and confer (again) before Court intervention. However, based upon the nature

of the disputed issues the Court determines that the most efficient method of

addressing the motion is through a telephonic hearing.

Accordingly, a telephonic hearing to address the above referenced motion is

scheduled before Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones on Thursday, March 31, 2011 at
Page 2 of 2

10:30 AM (Eastern Day Light Savings Time). Counsel for Defendants shall initiate the

conference call through the use of a conference call operator and when all counsel are

on line and ready to proceed the undersigned should be contacted at (352) 380-2413.1

Because the parties have not conferred in good faith to address all of the issues

in the motion to compel the parties are directed to do so prior to the hearing in an effort

to narrow the issues in dispute. In the event the Court must address any discovery

issue at the telephonic hearing, about which the parties have not conducted a good

faith conference to resolve, the Court will award attorney’s fees to the party who

prevails. 

 Any scheduling changes should be directed to the undersigned’s courtroom

deputy, Adelita Tinaya-Miller at (352) 380-2402.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of March, 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

The quality of the audioconference is compromised by the use of cell phones or speaker phones

1

and counsel are requested not to use those devices during the call.

Case No: 5:10-cv-0237-RS -GRJ
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519141 

________________________________

In the Matter of CHARLES 

WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

THOMAS LAVALLEY, as 

Superintendent of Clinton

Correctional Facility,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Charles Williams, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County)

to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
-2- 519141 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# C_2010223EN.01000501.xml

| 18.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 August 2010

2010/C 223/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2860 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,66 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4492 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82300 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4330 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3411 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9065 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,805 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 279,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9709 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2383 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9285 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4251 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3341 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9919 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8122 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7424 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 512,72 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3355 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7346 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2525 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 526,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0625 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,055 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,1144 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,796 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2499 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2260 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,9500 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2860

JPY

Japanese yen

109,66

DKK

Danish krone

7,4492

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82300

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4330

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3411

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9065

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,805

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

279,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9709

RON

Romanian leu

4,2383

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9285

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4251

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3341

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9919

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8122

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7424

KRW

South Korean won

1 512,72

ZAR

South African rand

9,3355

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7346

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2525

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 526,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0625

PHP

Philippine peso

58,055

RUB

Russian rouble

39,1144

THB

Thai baht

40,796

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2499

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2260

INR

Indian rupee

59,9500

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2011125EN.01000201.xml

| 28.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6085 — Costa Crociere/Alpitour/Welcome JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 125/03

On 18 April 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6085. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6085. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BRETT STEPHEN COBB,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv305/RS-EMT

ROBERT RICHARD FOWLER, JR, in his individual capacity; 

CHARLENE GANDY, in her individual capacity; 

CLAUDE LEGROS, in his individual capacity; 

BRADLEY WAYNE LORD, in his individual capacity; 

DEWEY SCOTT MAYBERRY, in his individual capacity; 

LAWRENCE EDWARD MOBLEY, III, in his individual capacity; AND 

JANA ELLEN POTTER, in her individual capacity;,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Joint Report of Parties Planning Meeting (Doc. 10). The 

attorneys have disregarded the guidance in the Initial Scheduling Order regarding 

the discovery deadline and a trial date.

It is ordered that the parties shall file an amended joint report not later than 

October 28, 2010, with dates consistent with a discovery deadline of February 5, 

2011, and a jury trial on May 9, 2011 or May 23, 2011. 

ORDERED on October 18, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 31.4





Certification of Principal Financial Officer Required
by


Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended,


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002





I,
Joseph P. Hannan, certify that:





1.
 I have reviewed
this Amendment No. 1 to
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of AutoWeb, Inc.;
and





2.
 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: March 11, 2019
By: /s/ Joseph P.
Hannan

Joseph P.
Hannan
Chief Financial
Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5181 

To require certain licensees under the Federal Power Act make annual payments to the county in which a licensed hydropower facility is located, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Mr. FASO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require certain licensees under the Federal Power Act 

make annual payments to the county in which a licensed 

hydropower facility is located, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Local Taxpayer Pro5 tection Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF FEES BY CERTAIN HYDROPOWER FA7 CILITY LICENSE HOLDERS. 

8 (a) INITIAL PAYMENT.—Not later than 1 year after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5181 IH

1 for the duration of the applicable license and any subse2 quent license received for the same facility and related op3 erations, a covered licensee shall make an annual payment 

4 to the county in which the applicable licensed project is 

5 located beginning in the amount of $1,800,000. 

6 (b) INCREASE IN SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS.—The 

7 amount of each annual payment occurring after the first 

8 annual payment shall increase by 2 percent of the pre9 ceding annual payment. 

10 (c) REMAINING OBLIGATIONS.—The payment of 

11 funds under this section shall not affect the obligation of 

12 the covered licensee to pay any other funds required to 

13 be paid to a county under the terms of a judicial decree 

14 or settlement of an action brought by one or more counties 

15 against the covered licensee. 

16 (d) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

17 section shall be construed to authorize an increase in the 

18 rates and charges for electric energy of a covered licensee. 

19 (e) COVERED LICENSEE DEFINED.—In this section, 

20 the term ‘‘covered licensee’’ means a State, or any subdivi21 sion thereof, that— 

22 (1) received a license under section 10 of the 

23 Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803) for a pumped24 storage facility; and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5181 IH

1 (2) filed for such license in April of 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
376 S.E.2d 161

#### In the Matter of William O. BIVENS, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Mercer County.

No. 18805.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Dec. 19, 1988.

PER CURIAM:

This judicial disciplinary proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule II.J(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Complaints Against Justices, Judges and Magistrates. It arises from a charge against the respondent judge of driving under the influence on October 23, 1988. The Judicial Investigation Commission seeks a decision regarding the appropriateness of suspension pending its investigation of this charge. Importantly, it makes no recommendation, but rather leaves this question of suspension for the Court’s determination. It alleges only that, under Rule II.J(2), the charge “could place in question the integrity of the legal sys-tem_” It does not allege present impairment of the respondent judge’s ability to perform his judicial duties.

In light of all the circumstances presented, the Court concludes that the exigent circumstances contemplated by Rule II.J(2) are not present in this proceeding. Beyond mere assertion, no evidence was presented indicating that the “integrity of the legal system,” as required under Rule II.J(2), will be compromised by the respondent judge’s continued service pending resolution of the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against him. Therefore, the Court determines that the respondent judge should not be suspended pending resolution of those proceedings.
Exhibit
99.4








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Presentacion
A. Coranes, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director,
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
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.












PRESENTACION A. CORANES Presentacion
A. Coranes


Chief
Accounting Officer


Chief
Financial Officer and Director











-1-