alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: AREDIA AND ZOMETA PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1760

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−135)

On April 18, 2006, the Panel transferred 27 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Tennessee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See 429 F.Supp.2d 1371 (J.P.M.L. 2006). Since that time, 563 additional action(s)

have been transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee. With the consent of that court, all such

actions have been assigned to the Honorable Todd J Campbell.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee and assigned to

Judge Campbell.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Middle District of Tennessee for the reasons stated in the order of April 18, 2006, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Todd J Campbell.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall

be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case MDL No. 1760 Document 404 Filed 12/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Dec 17, 2010
IN RE: AREDIA AND ZOMETA PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1760

SCHEDULE CTO−135 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

FLORIDA NORTHERN

FLN 1 10−00235 MELLA et al v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS

CORPORATION (MDTN No. 3:10cv1201)

FLN 1 10−00238 MANARITE et al v. NOVARTIS

PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION (MDTN No. 3:10cv1202)

Case MDL No. 1760 Document 404 Filed 12/17/10 Page 2 of 2

By Ann Frantz at 4:34 pm, Dec 17, 2010 By Ann Frantz on Dec 17, 2010
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CR-85-SPM/WCS-1

BYRON WHITAKER,

 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 20) of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of

the Defendant, BYRON WHITAKER, 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 twelfth day of January, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:10cr50-SPM-GRJ

DAVID STEPHEN BAKER,

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, DAVID STEPHEN BAKER, to Count

One of the information is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this

Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 5:11cr16-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:11cr16-RH-GRJ

RONTERREAL D. GAINER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 

The defendant Ronterreal D. Gainer has served nearly 113 months on a 204-

month sentence in the Bureau of Prisons. He has moved to reduce the sentence. His 

primary assertion is that a reduction is warranted by his good conduct and 

rehabilitation while serving the sentence. 

A district judge may not reduce a sentence except on limited grounds. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3582. Only one, sometimes referred to as “compassionate release,” is at 

issue here.

Federal law has long allowed compassionate release—that is, release before 

completion of a sentence based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons” or in 

other narrowly defined circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Until recently, a 

district court could order compassionate release only on motion of the Director of 

Case 5:11-cr-00016-RH-GRJ Document 211 Filed 08/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:11cr16-RH-GRJ

the Bureau of Prisons. The First Step Act changed this, allowing a sentence 

reduction on the motion of the Director or the defendant. Id. A defendant may file 

such a motion after exhausting administrative remedies. Id. Or the defendant may 

file such a motion without exhausting administrative remedies if more than 30 days 

have passed since the defendant delivered a request for relief to the warden of the 

defendant’s facility. Id. 

The most typical grounds for compassionate release include medical 

conditions, aging, and heightened risk from covid-19. In addition, some courts 

have found compelling, and thus have granted compassionate release, when a 

sentence has become extraordinarily disproportionate to the sentence that would be 

imposed today. See, e.g., United States v. Caylor, No. 3:01cr83/LAC (N.D. Fla. 

June 5, 2020). Good conduct and rehabilitation while serving a sentence ordinarily 

are not extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce a sentence. And even if 

they sometimes could be, Mr. Gainer’s performance, while commendable, does not 

warrant a sentence reduction. As a matter of discretion, the sentence will not be 

reduced on these or other grounds cited in the motion or shown by this record.

IT IS ORDERED:

The motion for a sentence reduction, ECF No. 208, is denied.

SO ORDERED on August 29, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cr-00016-RH-GRJ Document 211 Filed 08/29/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                       929
<INVENTORY>                                    130,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,435
<PP&E>                                          21,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,691
<BONDS>                                          8,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,551
<SALES>                                        302,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,413
<CGS>                                          245,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  245,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# DATES AND TIMES:

Thursday, November 29, 2007, at 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# The following Item Has Been Added to the Agenda:

*Advisory Opinion 2007-30:*                         Chris Dodd for President, Inc., by Marc E. Elias, Esq.                    

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-5892 Filed 11-27-07; 3:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

HOME DESIGN SERVICES INC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00006-MP -GRJ

SHAWN BROWN, KERMIT CONSTRUCTION INC, NEW GENERATION HOME

BUILDERS INC, TONY S ROSS, ROBERT T SHEWEY,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 29, Motion to Extend Time to Complete

Mediation, to which both sides agree. The motion is granted, and the parties shall complete

mediation by July 31, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00006-MP-GRJ Document 31 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-215-RS-CJK

LAKE GARDEN APARTMENTS, LTD.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) because the Parties have reached 

a settlement. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 16.2(D), IT IS ORDERED:

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

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

Court reserves jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within 60 days of 

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

reinstate the case. 

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

expiration of 60 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case in 

its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on December 8, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00215-RS-CJK Document 23 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010318EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5989 — HC/Naturgas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 318/01

On 17 November 2010, 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 Spanish language 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 32010M5989. 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 32010M5989. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

EXPEDIA, INC. 
 SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT 
 AGREEMENT 

This Second Amendment to the AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) is made by and between
Mark D. Okerstrom (“Executive”) and Expedia, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” and together with the Executive hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”)
and is effective as of August 11, 2014 (the “Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into the
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, effective as of October 11,2011 and an AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, effective March 7, 2014 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below; 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Executive and the Company agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as
follows: 
 1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by changing Executive’s title and replacing the first sentence of
Section 1.A. of the Employment Agreement with the following: 
  

	  	“The Company agrees to employ Executive as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Operations of the Company; Executive accepts and agrees to such employment.” 


2. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by increasing Executive’s base salary and replacing Section 3.A.(a) of the Employment
Agreement in its entirety with the following: 
  

	  	“(a) BASE SALARY. Commencing on the Effective Date, and through the remainder of the Term, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary of $750,000.00 (the “Base Salary”), payable in equal
biweekly installments or in accordance with the Company’s payroll practice as in effect from time to time. For all purposes under this Agreement, the term “Base Salary” shall refer to Base Salary as in effect from time to time.”









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Second Amendment, in the case of
the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the Effective Date. 
  

							
	COMPANY	 		 	EXPEDIA, INC.
			
		 		 	 
		 		 	By:	 	




		 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary.
		 		 	Date:	 	September 11, 2014

  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	MARK D. OKERSTROM
			
		 		 	 





		 		 	Date:	 	September 11, 2014
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statements No. 333-20549, No. 333-65459, No. 333-38568 and No. 333-88836 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-81384 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated January 27,2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets during 2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PowerwaveTechnologies, Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2002. 

 

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Costa Mesa, California 

February 21, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNA DYKES; DAVID WALKER,

by and through his next friend, Michele

Beauregard; HEATHER YOUNG, by

and though her next friend Robert

Stark; MICHELLE CONGDEN;

AMANDA PIVINSKI; and DISABILITY

RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., a Florida

non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv116/RS-WCS

ELIZABETH DUDEK, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the Florida

Agency for Health Care Administration;

BRIAN VAUGHAN, in his official capacity

as (Interim) Director of the Florida Agency

for Persons with Disabilities; and RICK

SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor

of the State of Florida,

 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by Plaintiffs’ Stipulated Motion For Local Rule 6.1 Extension

For Filing Plaintiffs’ Response To Motions To Dismiss And Motion To Certify Class

(Doc. 27) is granted.

ORDERED on June 22, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00116-RS-CAS Document 28 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:11-cv-00116-RS-CAS Document 28 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STEVEN B. SLADE and 

ROBIN S. SLADE, individually 

and on behalf of all others

 similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:11cv5-SPM/WCS

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C.

CONSUEGRA, P.L., a Florida

limited liability company,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend

Complaint. Doc. 26. Defendant has failed to file a response in opposition as

required under local rule 7.1(C). 

The federal rules provide that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to

amend a complaint] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “In the

absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue

of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave sought

Case 4:11-cv-00005-RH-WCS Document 29 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,

182 (1962). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (doc. 26) is granted.

2. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including May 25, 2011, to file their

amended complaint. Defendant shall have 14 days to respond. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:11cv5-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00005-RH-WCS Document 29 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5395 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5395

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2018

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 116 Main Street in Dansville, New York, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
           Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT ALEXANDRIA GLEASON-MORROW POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 116 Main Street in Dansville, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DOREEN TRUNNELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-38-SPM-GRJ

ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC.

d/b/a ADVANCED AUTO PARTS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Unopposed Motion For

Enlargement Of Time To File Its Answer/Response To Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 6.) 

Defendant requests an extension of time up to and including May 13, 2011 to respond

to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1.) Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel

pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B) and represents that Plaintiff does not object to the relief

requested in Defendant’s motion.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion For Enlargement Of Time To File Its

Answer/Response To Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 

(2) Defendant shall respond to the Complaint (Doc. 1) by May 13, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of May, 2011. nd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00038-SPM-GRJ Document 7 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHOUPIETE P. CASSEUS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-4-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 7, Respondent’s first motion for an

extension of time to respond to the Petition due to exigent circumstances. 

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. That the motion, Doc. 7, is GRANTED. Respondent shall respond to the

Petition on or before June 13, 2011.

2. Petitioner shall have until July 13, 2011, to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of April 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge