alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 07-1640

___________ John Henry Williams, ADC #93081 *

* Appellant, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Max Mobley, Chief Deputy, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas. Department of Correction; Greg * Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Regional Unit, ADC; Dottie * Yarbrough, CMS Infirmary Manager, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Shirley Crawford, R.N., East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; Flora Jones, R.N., * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Lisa Montgomery, R.N., East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; Joseph Spears, * R.N., East Arkansas Regional Unit, * ADC; Shelat Farmer, Dr., East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Polly * James, A.R.O., East Arkansas Regional * Unit, ADC; Charles E. Jackson, Sgt., * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Didi Lockhart, CMS Grievance * Manager, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * ADC; Jimmy Banks, Assistant Warden, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, * originally sued as Terry Banks; Zina * Ousley, CMS Infirmary Manager, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, * originally sued as Zina Ousely; Linda * Driver, CMS Medical Records, East *1 The Honorable Henry L. Jo nes, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2- Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, * originally sued as Carolyn Driver, *

* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 24, 2008 Filed: April 28, 2008

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Henry Williams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We agree with the district court that summary judgment was warranted, see Roe v. Crawford , 514 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); and th at Williams provided no basis under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) for reconsidering the grant of summary judgment, seeChristensen v. Qwest Pension Plan , 462 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2006) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) sta ndard of review); Arnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) sta ndard of review). We decline to consider Williams’s new evidence and allegations. SeeMinn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp.
, 472 F.3d 524, 532 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court considers only evidence before district court when summary judgment ru ling was made); Stone v. Harry , 364 F.3d 912, 914- 15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to address pr o se arguments first raised on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Williams’s pending motions.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Owl Rock Technology Finance Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|                      |        |        |                                                     |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 10, 2022 |   | By:    | /s/ Jonathan Lamm                                   |
|                 |   |   | Jonathan Lamm                                       |
|                 |   |   | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

 

----
Change-in-Control Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
  
 February 16, 2005 
  

_____________________ 
  
 _____________________ 
  
 _____________________ 
  
 Dear                     :

  
 Pursuant to a decision by the Executive Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Deltic Timber Corporation, attached is the basis of remuneration and other items should our company experience a Change-in-Control* 
  
 I am pleased the Committee agreed to extend this potential benefit to you. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Ray C. Dillon 
  


	*	Change-in-control shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Deltic Timber Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. 

  
  







 A Change-in-Control (CIC) Agreement with a “double trigger” where in the event a change in control occurs and a
direct report to the President and CEO who is an officer of the Company is dismissed within two years without cause or suffer (i) a reduction in salary and potential bonus and/or (ii) a meaningful diminution of job responsibility as a consequence of
such a change, he would receive the following: 
  

	 	a)	One year base salary and target bonus 

  

	 	b)	One year of health and welfare benefits 

  

	 	c)	Accelerated vesting of all stock options and restricted stock 

  

	 	d)	Comprehensive executive outplacement services 

  

	 	e)	Should any of these actions attract excise tax, they would be grossed up 

  

	 	f)	Any cash payments will be paid in one payment as soon as practicable following the event
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BLACKBERRY LIMITED, A CANADIAN 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 

WHATSAPP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 

INSTAGRAM, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

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

BLACKBERRY LIMITED, A CANADIAN 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SNAP INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1256, 2020-1258

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GWKS, 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS, Judge George H. Wu.

Case: 20-1256 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2020
______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

SANFORD IAN WEISBURST, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JAMES R. ASPERGER, PUSHKAL 

MISHRA, PATRICK T. SCHMIDT, Los Angeles, CA; KEVIN P.B.

JOHNSON, Redwood Shores, CA; JEFFREY NARDINELLI, San 

Francisco, CA; RICHARD A. LOWRY, Washington, DC. 

 HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued 

for defendants-appellees Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., 

Instagram, LLC. Also represented by MATTHEW J.

BRIGHAM, DENA CHEN, MARK R. WEINSTEIN; ELIZABETH 

PRELOGAR, Washington, DC. 

 YAR ROMAN CHAIKOVSKY, Paul Hastings LLP, Palo 

Alto, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Snap Inc. Also 

represented by DAVID OKANO; CHAD PETERMAN, New York, 

NY. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

December 10, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1256 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2020
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Form 10Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, 
     the financial condition and result of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: November 8, 2002
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned hereby certifiesthat the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Quaker Chemical Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015 filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

|                 |   |                                                    |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: July 30, 2015 |   | /s/ Margaret M. Loebl                                   |
|                 |   | Margaret M. Loebl                                       |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer of Quaker  Chemical Corporation |

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Armen Panossian , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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


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





/s/    Armen PanossianName:    Armen PanossianDate: December 16, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul H. Cossette

v. Case No. 05-cv-328-PB

Mike Johanns, Secretary,

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

O R D E R

The United States Forest Service rejected Paul Cossette’s

application for employment as a Resource Assistant. Cossette

challenged the Forest Service’s decision both by commencing an

administrative challenge under the Veterans Employment

Opportunity Act and the Uniformed Services Employment and

Reemployment Act, and by filing the current judicial action under

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §

621, et seq. Cossette lost his administrative action when the

Federal Circuit endorsed the Administrative Judge’s finding that

“Cossette made no showing that he in fact met the basic

qualification requirement for the [Resource Assistant] position.” 

Cossette v. Dep’t of Agric., 113 Fed. Appx. 398, 401 (Fed. Cir.

2004).

Case 1:05-cv-00328-PB Document 49 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

The government has filed a motion for summary judgment

arguing that Cossette is collaterally estopped by the Federal

Circuit’s ruling from contending that he was qualified for the

Resource Assistant position. I cannot resolve this question now

because it has not been adequately briefed. If the government

elects to renew its argument, it shall explain the applicability

or inapplicability of the following cases: Kremer v. Chem.

Constr. Co., 456 U.S. 461 (1982); Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S.

840 (1976); Baez-Cruz v. Municipality of Comerio, 140 F.3d 24

(1st Cir. 1998); Taylor v. Alexander, 39 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir.

1994) (unpublished); Gergick v. Austin, 997 F.2d 1237 (8th Cir.

1993); Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986); Rosenfeld

v. Dep’t of Army, 769 F.2d 237 (4th Cir. 1985); Gonsalves v.

Alpine Country Club, 727 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1984). 

The government alternatively argues that Cosette has

introduced insufficient evidence to support his contention that

he was qualified for the Resource Assistant position. I decline

to address this argument until the government has either

rebriefed or abandoned its collateral estoppel argument.

Case 1:05-cv-00328-PB Document 49 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 39) is

denied without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 3, 2007

cc: Paul Cossette, pro se

 T. David Plourde, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00328-PB Document 49 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         20,675 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,477 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0       
<PP&E>                                      2,257,560      
<DEPRECIATION>                                102,496    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,222,999      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0    
<BONDS>                                       669,460  
<COMMON>                                       72,980 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                   322,575 
<OTHER-SE>                                    920,837       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,222,999         
<SALES>                                       240,102          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              241,691          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  96,545          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             22,401       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                85,613       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            86,483      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (870)      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   85,613 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.18 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.18 
        
                                  


</TABLE>
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-831V

Filed: November 10, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SUSAN J. SWANSON, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Douglas Lee Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.

Alice Isabel Legat Tayman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 13, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) following her October 23, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition 

at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters.

On November 9, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has determined that petitioner’s alleged 

injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), and 

it was caused by the flu vaccination that petitioner received on October 23, 2014.” Id. at

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury has been 

identified, that petitioner suffered residual effects of her injury for more than six months, 

and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 

Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey D. Gilbert

v. Case No. 04-cv-327-PB

Atlantic Trust Company, N.A.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 16, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

With Respet to Count VI

Ruling: Motion granted. Assuming for purposes of analysis

that defendant might otherwise be subject to liability under N.H.

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 421-B:3 and 4, I grant the motion because

plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with the particularity required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp.,

360 F.3d 220, 226 (1st Cir. 2004). 

 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge

Date: September 3, 2005

cc: Michael C. Harvell, Esq.

 John-Mark Turner, Esq.

 Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00327-PB Document 33 Filed 09/03/05 Page 1 of 1
226 La. 848

#### Gordie WILLIAMS v. SOUTHERN ADVANCE BAG AND PAPER CO., Inc.

No. 41557.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1954.

*417Meadors, Shaw & Meadors, 'Homer, for plaintiff-appellant.

W. T. Holloway, David T. Caldwell, Jonesboro, for defendant-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The appellant having failed to make an appearance in this court or to file a brief in support of his appeal, the appeal will be dismissed. See Chatelain v. Besnard, 219 La. 488, 53 So.2d 243, and cases therein cited; Di Martino v. O’Brien, 225 La. 329, 72 So.2d 749.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-145-01-SM

Jane M. Cook

ORDER OF RECUSAL

As I own stock in Bank of America, a corporation that would

be entitled to restitution from the defendant, I am required to,

and hereby do recuse myself from presiding over this case. See

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

December 16, 2005

cc: Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Case 1:05-cr-00145-JD Document 7 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Emilio Encarnacion

v. Case No. 05-cv-291-JD

United States of America

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 19, Letter/Motion to Extend Time to

Submit Exhibit Designation

Ruling: Denied. The matter is now before the

Court of Appeals. Therefore any request

relating to exhibits is properly addressed to

that court. This court does not have

authority to exercise control over the Court

of Appeals docket.

Date: April 20, 2006

cc: Emilio Encarnacion, pro se

Peter E. Papps, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00291-JD Document 20 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-99-01-SM

Marcelo Moraes

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 13) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 2, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00099-SM Document 14 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: March 23, 2007 at 3:00 PM 

Jury Selection: April 3, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 29, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Robert Kinsella, Esq.

 Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00099-SM Document 14 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2