alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Project Category and Billing Category Hours

PG&E Corporation, et al. (Case No. 19-30088 (DM))

For the Period June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019

Summary by Project Category and Billing Category

Total 

Compensation

Exhibit A

PwC LLP - Management, Tax and Advisory Consultants to the Debtors

Fixed Fee Services

Claims Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-B

Claims Coding 51.40 $3,417.00

Subtotal - Claims Services 51.40 $3,417.00

Offshore Support Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-E

Offshore Support Services 0.00 $95,228.00

Subtotal - Offshore Support Services 0.00 $95,228.00

Internal Audit Assessment Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-F

Internal Audit Assessment Services 24.00 $21,600.00

Subtotal - Internal Audit Assessment Services 24.00 $21,600.00

Compliance Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-H

Compliance Services 143.70 $80,000.00

Subtotal - Compliance Services 143.70 $80,000.00

Controls Testing Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-I

Controls Testing Services 511.50 $70,265.00

Subtotal - Controls Testing Services 511.50 $70,265.00

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Fixed Fee Services 730.60 $270,510.00

Hourly Services

Strategic Analysis Services Retention Exhibit #: 03

Accounting & Reporting Services 964.30 $505,046.10

Subtotal - Strategic Analysis Services 964.30 $505,046.10

Bankruptcy Tax Advisory Services Retention Exhibit #: 05

Tax Services 96.70 $70,601.10

Subtotal - Bankruptcy Tax Advisory Services 96.70 $70,601.10

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Hourly Services 1,061.00 $575,647.20

Case Administration

Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations

Employment Applications and Other Court Filings 3.30 $1,815.00

Monthly, Interim and Final Fee Applications 113.90 $54,357.50

Subtotal - Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations 117.20 $56,172.50

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Case Administration 117.20 $56,172.50

Total - Hours and Compensation Sought for Reimbursement 1,908.80 $902,329.70

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4459-1 Filed: 10/24/19 Entered: 10/24/19 09:36:20 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143718) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2007 Stock Plan and the 2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of NeurogesX, Inc.,
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150615) pertaining to the 2007 Stock Plan and the 2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of NeurogesX, Inc., and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-150614) of NeurogesX, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses,
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated March 20, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NeurogesX, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California

March 20, 2009
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5183 Filed: 12/20/19 Entered: 12/20/19 11:20:53 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5183 Filed: 12/20/19 Entered: 12/20/19 11:20:53 Page 2 of

2
#### PAYNE-FARRIS COMPANY v. MRS. L. A. KUESTER and MISS L. E. KUESTER.

(Filed 24 November, 1937.)

Principal and Agent § 12 — Acceptance and use of goods and signing re-plevy bond beld to ratify agent’s execution of conditional sales contract.

Where a conditional sales contract is signed by a person in the name of another, and the person for whom the goods were bought receives and uses same, and files a replevy bond to resist recovery by the seller in claim and delivery, she ratifies the signing of the conditional sales coh-tract in her name, and may not deny the authority of the agent to sign same.

Appeal by defendant Mrs. L. A. Kuester from *Harding, J.,*at February Term, 1937, of MeckleNbuiig. No error.

*Jahe F. Newell for plaintiff, appellee.*

*John Newitt for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cubiam.

This is an action in claim and delivery of certain furniture sold and delivered on a title retained contract. Appropriate issues were submitted and answered in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment in accord therewith defendant Mrs. L. A. Kuester appealed.

The principal assignment of error urged in the brief of the appellant is the court’s failure to sustain her objection to the admission in evidence of the title retained contract signed in her name by Miss L. E. Kuester, her daughter, without the plaintiff having first established the authority of the daughter to sign the name of her mother thereto. Without passing upon the question of whether the daughter was originally authorized to sign the contract, the evidence is that the mother, the appellant, *546received tbe furniture in ber borne, enjoyed tbe use and benefits thereof, resisted its recovery by giving replevy bond, and thereby ratified tbe action of ber daughter in signing ber name and procuring tbe furniture. “Tbe relation of principal and agent is created by ratification when one person adopts an act done by another person, assuming to act on bis behalf, but without authority or in excess of authority, with tbe same force and effect as if tbe relation bad been created by appointment.” *Trollinger v. Fleer,*157 N. C., 81. Tbe ratification of tbe action of ber daughter by tbe appellant rendered tbe instrument competent evidence.

Tbe motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit made and renewed pursuant to C. S., 567, cannot be sustained, since tbe evidence was sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury.

We have examined tbe other exceptive assignments of error and find no prejudicial error.

No error.
ex10_2.htm






















	
Exhibit Number
	
Description

	
3.1
	
Articles of Incorporation (1)

	
3.2
	
By-Laws(1)

	
5.1
	
Opinion of Cane Clark, LLP, with consent to use(1)

	
10.1
	
License Agreement (1)

	
10.2
	
Slack Services

	
10.3
	
Bendio Services

	
10.4
	
MERI China, LLC Manufacturing Bid

	
23.1
	
Consent of Malone & Bailey, PC

	
24.1
	
Power of Attorney (see attached signature page)













 


(1) Included in previously filed registration statement.
























 

Exhibit 10.2

 

We have retained Robert Slack, DVM as a consultant for the development of our Product. He has received approval to access all of the different sizes of dog mouths from the Washington State University Department of Veterinary School of Medicine. We also have access to study the craniums of the canine cadavers from his veterinary clinic. Thus,
when we have completed the development of all four sizes of our Product, we can test each size on a wide variety of different jaw sizes. This will ensure that every pet in America will be properly sized for at least one of our Products.





On September 26, 2007, we issued 130,000 shares of our common stock to Mr. Slack for services rendered.  These shares were valued at $2,457. Mr. Slack provided us molds to use, advise on the toothbrush mold design, and will test the efficacy of the toothbrush on sedated dogs at his vet clinic once we have our final mold design. We
have a verbal arrangement with Mr. Slack for these services.
EXHIBIT 10.5


 


CORNELL COMPANIES, INC.


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


Article VII
(A) (ii) of the Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan is
clarified and amended to provide as follows:


 


“(ii) In
the event of the Participant’s Termination of Employment without Cause or a
Termination of Employment due to Participant’s resignation from employment with
the Company, such Options shall remain exercisable for ninety (90) days from
the date of the Participant’s Termination of Employment, provided that the
Committee, in its sole discretion, may at any time extend such time period.”


 


All
capitalized terms used in this First Amendment shall have the meanings
attributed to them in the Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan.


 


Effective
April 30, 2009.


 


By
Resolution of the Board of Directors of Cornell Companies, Inc. on April 29,
2009.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130859 Michael F. Cavanagh 130860 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MONIKA MAZUMDER, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Deepika S. Mazu mder, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130859, 130860 COA: 261331; 261333 Washtenaw CC: 04-001101-NM UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, ROBERT A. KOEPKE, PH.D., RAJIV TANDON, M.D., SATOSHI MINOSHIMA, M.D., WASHTENAW COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, JOSEPH YAROCH, M.D., MOONSON R. ELLIOTT ENINSCHE, B.A., R.S.W., C.S.M., RICHARD PFOUTZ, M.S.W., C.S.W., MOHAMED AZIZ, M.D., and STEP HAN F. TAYLOR, M.D., Defendants,

and

SRINIBAS MAHAPATRA, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ _________________/

By order of April 4, 2007 , the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in ab eyance pending the decision in Mullins v St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Docket No. 131879). On or der of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is consid ered, and the application for l eave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and w ithout costs. The a pplication for leave to appeal in Docket No. 130836 remains pending.

l0515 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 18, 2007

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6727

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR97-365; CA-03-1397-CCB) Submitted: June 21, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesus Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jesus Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 542 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 542

  To limit restrictions on deer hunting within the Kisatchie National 
                                Forest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2013

 Mr. Fleming introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit restrictions on deer hunting within the Kisatchie National 
                                Forest.

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

SECTION 1. HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST.

    (a) In General.--Consistent with the Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 
551), the Secretary of Agriculture may not restrict the use of dogs in 
deer hunting activities in Kisatchie National Forest, unless such 
restrictions--
            (1) apply to the smallest practicable portions of such 
        unit; and
            (2) are necessary to reduce or control trespass onto land 
        adjacent to such unit.
    (b) Prior Restrictions Void.--Any restrictions regarding the use of 
dogs in deer hunting activities in Kisatchie National Forest in force 
on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void and have no 
force or effect.
    (c) Adjacent Landowners.--Landowners whose property abuts a unit of 
the Kisatchie National Forest may petition the Secretary of Agriculture 
to restrict the use of dogs in deer hunting activities that take place 
on such units which abut their property. If the Secretary of 
Agriculture receives a petition from an adjacent landowner, the 
Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, may impose 
restrictions on the use of dogs in deer hunting--
            (1) limited to those units of the Kisatchie National Forest 
        within 300 yards of the boundary of the petitioning landowner's 
        property; and
            (2) consistent with subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES



1RWLFH3DUWLHV

3*	(&RUSRUDWLRQ

FR3DFLILF*DV	(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

$WWQ -DQHW/RGXFD(VT

%HDOH6WUHHW

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

.HOOHU	%HQYHQXWWL//3

$WWQ 7RELDV6.HOOHU(VT

-DQH.LP(VT

&DOLIRUQLD6WUHHW6XLWH

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

7KH2IILFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV7UXVWHHIRU5HJLRQ

$WWQ -DPHV/6Q\GHU(VT

7LPRWK\/DIIUHGL(VT

*ROGHQ*DWH$YHQXHWK)ORRU6XLWH

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

0LOEDQN//3

$WWQ 'HQQLV)'XQQH(VT

6DP$.KDOLO(VT

+XGVRQ<DUGV

1HZ<RUN1<

0LOEDQN//3

$WWQ 3DXO6$URQ]RQ(VT

*UHJRU\$%UD\(VT

7KRPDV5.UHOOHU(VT

&HQWXU\3DUN(DVWUG)ORRU

/RV$QJHOHV&$

:HLO*RWVKDO	0DQJHV//3

$WWQ6WHSKHQ.DURWNLQ(VT

-HVVLFD/LRX(VT 0DWWKHZ*RUHQ(VT

)LIWK$YHQXH

1HZ<RUN1<

%UXFH$0DUNHOO

)HH([DPLQHU

1)DLUEDQNV&RXUW

6XLWH

&KLFDJR,/

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-15 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 1

of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 11.1
 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(unaudited)
 Three Months Ended
    
    Nine Months EndedJuly 31,
    
    July 31,2005
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2006Numerator:Net income (loss)
    
    $
    21,087
    
    
    $
    (6,496,188
    )
    
    $
    803,689
    
    
    $
    (9,255,385
    )Denominator:Denominator for basic earnings per
share- weighted-average shares
    
    
    13,981,101
    
    
    
    14,209,274
    
    
    
    13,899,857
    
    
    
    14,119,089Effect of dilutive securities:Employee stock options
    
    
    600,042
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    581,267
    
    
    
    Denominator for diluted earnings
per share adjusted
weighted-average shares and
assumed conversions
    
    
    14,581,143
    
    
    
    14,209,274
    
    
    
    14,481,124
    
    
    
    14,119,089Basic and diluted earnings (loss)
per share:Net basic earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    0.01
    
    
    $
    (0.46
    )
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    (0.66
    )Net diluted earnings (loss) per
share
    
    $
    0.01
    
    
    $
    (0.46
    )
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    (0.66
    )
 25
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #12188 and #12189]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1916-DR), dated 05/14/2010.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/01/2010 through 05/02/2010.                    

*Effective Date:*                         05/24/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/13/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/14/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Mississippi, dated 05/14/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Marshall, Union.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-13185 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5714 

AN ACT 

To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, 

retain, submit, and convey pesticide application-related 

records, reports, data, and other information in electronic 

form. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5714 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pest Management 

3 Records Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY COMMERCIAL 

5 APPLICATORS OF PESTICIDES TO COMPLY 

6 WITH RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING RE7 QUIREMENTS. 

8 Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

9 and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(h) ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT12 ING.—Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Federal, 

13 State, or local law, commercial applicators of pesticides, 

14 including commercial applicators of restricted use pes15 ticides, may create, retain, submit, and convey a pesticide 

16 application-related record, report, data, or other informa17 tion in electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement 

18 for such creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, re19 spectively, under any Federal, State, or local law.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5714 

AN ACT 

To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to 

information in electronic form. cation-related records, reports, data, and other create, retain, submit, and convey pesticide appli-
#### Chicago West Division Railway Company v. Maria J. Bolton.

*Street Railroads—Negligence—Personal Injuries—Evidence—Instructions.*

In an action to recover from a street railroad company for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered through its negligence, this court declines, the evidence being conflicting, to interfere with the verdict for the plaintiff.

[Opinion filed June 30, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. W. B. Keep and Edmund Furthmann, for appellant.

Mr. S. K. Dow, for appellee.

Gary, P. J.

This is an action to recover damages for a personal injury. The case made by the appellee, and of which she offered such evidence as warranted the jury, in the conflict of evidence, to find to be true, was that, being a passenger on the west-bound open car of the appellant, on Madison street, the car stopped for her to get off at the west side of Elizabeth street, and she, being on the south side of the car, and intending to go to her place of business on the south side of Madison street, opposite to the end of Elizabeth street— which ends at Madison street, and does not extend south of *144it—alighted from the south side of the car and started to walk diagonally southeastwardly across Madison street and the south track of the appellant, when an east-bound car of the appellant carelessly ran her down, indicting upon her serious injury.

Two and a half pages of the abstract are occupied with instructions given at the request of the appellant, some of them more favorable than it was entitled to. Complaint is made that the court refused to instruct on the hypothesis ‘‘that the plaintiff had no right to be where she was at the time of the accident,” which is manifestly intended to raise the question whether she had a right to walk diagonally across the street. Until better instructed, we shall hold that to be no question at all. Also, that mere omission “ to perform any duty which it ought to perform, is not of itself sufficient to render the defendant liable.”

This principle, in much more emphatic form, was given in another instruction. There is no error and the judgment-must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

RALI Series 2007-QS2 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the Series Supplement, dated as of January 1, 2007, and the Standard Terms of Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), among Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report
on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director