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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TAMMI LARSEN, in her individual capacity, 

and as natural parent and legal guardian of 

RYAN LARSEN, a minor child,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAPRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 77-

0027 d/b/a PAPILLION LA VISTA 

COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, and 

JANE DOES 1-3, individually, and in their 

official capacities,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 8:23-cv-00190

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

In response to the Complaint filed by Tammi Larsen, individually and on behalf of her son 

Ryan Larsen (Plaintiffs), Defendant Sarpy County School District 77-0027 d/b/a Papillion La Vista 

Community School District (“PLCS”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), hereby moves to 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

WHEREFORE, PLCS respectfully requests that the Court enter an order dismissing 

Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety against PLCS pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). 

DATED: July 14, 2023

SARPY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 77-0027 

d/b/a PAPILLION LA VISTA COMMUNITY 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

Defendant
2

By: /s/Charles E. Wilbrand

Charles E. Wilbrand - #2488

Grant M. Paschke - #27747

KNUDSEN, BERKHEIMER, 

RICHARDSON & ENDACOTT, LLP

3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 200

Lincoln, Nebraska 68502

(402) 475-7011

Fax: (402) 475-8912

cwilbrand@knudsenlaw.com

gpaschke@knudsenlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 14, 2023 the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent electronic notice of the filing to the registered 

attorneys of record in this matter, including the Plaintiffs’ attorneys indicated below, along with 

sending it via first class mail: 

Sean M. Conway 

Chandler | Conway, PC LLO

1018 Dodge Street, Suite 5

Omaha, NE 68102

sean@chandlerconway.com

and 

Michael B. Duffy 

Fraser Stryker, PC LLO

500 Energy Plaza 

409 South 17th Street

Omaha, NE 68102

mduffy@fraserstryker.com

By: Charles E. Wilbrand

Charles E. Wilbrand
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

WILLIAM J. HIGGINS, JR.

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2504 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 110 DB 2018

Attorney Registration No. 84428

(Bedford County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the Verified 

Statement of Resignation, William J. Higgins, Jr., is disbarred on consent from the Bar 

of this Commonwealth, see Pa.R.D.E. 215, and he shall comply with the provisions of 

Pa.R.D.e. 217. Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to 

Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Order entered April 13, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00344-CV

DIANA FAY BASS, Appellant

V.

RICHARD H. BASS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-54722-2015

ORDER

Before this Court is appellant’s April 6, 2016 motion requesting this Court to grant a 

temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. We DENY appellant’s motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AMY JACOBY, 

Defendant.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion 

Deadline. (Filing No. 43). The motion is unopposed by the government. For good cause shown, 

the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion Deadline, (Filing No. 43), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by October 6, 2023.

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between August 7, 2023, and October 

6, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. The 

failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 45 Filed: 08/08/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 88
court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 8th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 45 Filed: 08/08/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 89
Amendment to Change in Control Severance Agreement




 Exhibit 10.25 
  
 ALTERA CORPORATION 
 AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 FOR JOHN DAANE 
  
 Effective May 12, 2004, Section 3 of the Change in Control Severance Agreement
(“Agreement”) entered into between Altera Corporation and John Daane on November 30, 2000, is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety as follows: 
  

3. Severance Upon the Occurrence of a Trigger Event. In the event of the occurrence of a Trigger Event, you shall receive from the Company
within thirty (30) days of the date of termination the ‘Change in Control Severance Package,’ as hereinafter defined. The Change in Control Severance Package shall consist of (i) payment equivalent to twenty-four months of your
then-current base salary, (ii) a bonus equivalent to two times your target bonus, if any, for the fiscal year in which the Change in Control occurs, and (iii) accelerated vesting of all options and restricted shares which have been granted or issued
at least six months prior to the Change in Control. You shall have one (1) year from the date of termination to exercise any stock options for which vesting is accelerated pursuant to subsection (iii). The Change in Control Severance Package (or
Limited Payment Amount, as defined in Section 4) provided for herein shall be paid in lieu of any other severance to you.” 
  
 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment on the respective dates set forth below. 
  

							
	 JOHN DAANE
	 	 ALTERA CORPORATION

			
	 /s/ John Daane

	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ William E. Terry


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 William E. Terry

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Chairman, Compensation Committee

				
	 Date:
	 	 ____________
	 	 Date:
	 	 ____________
2018
Amendment


to
the


Cardax,
Inc. 2014 Equity Compensation Plan


 


Effective
as of December 4, 2018


 


Reference
is made to the Cardax, Inc. 2014 Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), adopted by resolution of the Board
of Directors of Cardax, Inc. (the “Company”) as of January 3, 2014. Capitalized terms used in this amendment
(this “Amendment”) to the Plan that are not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


 


WHEREAS,
the board of directors and the stockholders of the Company have previously adopted, authorized and approved the Plan;


 


WHEREAS,
the maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved for the grant or settlement of Awards under the Plan prior to giving effect
to this Amendment is equal to 45,420,148;


 


WHEREAS,
on December 4, 2018, the stockholders of the Company adopted, approved authorized, confirmed and ratified the terms of this Amendment
to the Plan;


 


WHEREAS,
this Amendment implements the action of the stockholders of the Company.


 


Amendment


 


Section
5.5 of the Plan provides for the number of shares of the Common Stock reserved for the grant or settlement of Awards under the
Plan.


 


Prior
to giving effect to this Amendment, the first sentence of Section 5.5 of the Plan provides as follows:


 


The
maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved for the grant or settlement of Awards under the Plan shall be a number equal
to 25% of the fully diluted number of shares of Common Stock of the Company as of the Effective Date, determined as if the maximum
number of shares reserved were issued and outstanding, as of the Effective Date and shall be subject to adjustment as provided
herein.


 




    	 



     


    




 


After
giving effect to this Amendment, the first sentence of Section 5.5 of the Plan is replaced to read in its entirety as follows:


 


The
maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved for the grant or settlement of Awards under the Plan shall be equal to the following,
subject to adjustment as provided herein: (i) as of December 4, 2018: 50,420,148; and (ii) such greater amount that is determined
by the Board on an annual basis from and after January 1, 2019, provided that the amount of such annual increase shall not be
greater than an amount equal to four percent (4%) of the shares of common stock of the Company issued and outstanding as of December
31st of the previous calendar year; which increase, if any, shall be effective as of January 1 of the calendar year that the Board
authorizes such increase, unless such other effective date is otherwise determined by the Board.


 


Ratification


 


The
terms and conditions of the Plan shall be in full force and effect from and after December 4, 2018, as amended by this Amendment.


 


*
* * * *
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1031 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1031

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2001

   Mr. Simmons (for himself, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms. Hart, Mr. Shays, Mrs. 
 Biggert, Mr. Armey, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Greenwood, and Mrs. 
   Johnson of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal No Frills Prisons Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN AMENITIES AND 
              PERSONAL COMFORTS IN THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.

    No Federal funds may be used to provide any of the following 
amenities or personal comforts in the Federal prison system:
            (1) In-cell television viewing, except for prisoners who 
        are segregated from the general prison population for their own 
        safety.
            (2) Viewing of any motion picture rated R, X, or NC-17, 
        without regard to the medium through which the motion picture 
        is presented.
            (3) Instruction (whether live or through broadcasts), or 
        training equipment, for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or any 
        other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
        equipment of any sort.
            (4) Possession of any in-cell coffee pot, hot plate, or 
        heating element.
            (5) Use or possession of any electric or electronic musical 
        instrument.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-018-01-PB

Travis Blodgett

O R D E R

Defendant moves for a copy of the indictment against him and

for unredacted discovery. 

I do not know what Mr. Foley is thinking in claiming that

his client never received copies of an indictment in light of the

following: 

1. I have listened to the tape of the January 30,

2006 arraignment. I ordered the Clerk to provide Travis

Blodgett with the indictment in court. He read it and he

and Mr. Foley acknowledged on the record that he understood

it. He was then provided a copy. 

2. A waiver of defendant’s appearance on the

superceding indictment, signed by Travis Blodgett and Mr.

Foley acknowledges receipt of the indictment. 

3. Mr. Foley is registered as a CM/ECF user and can

copy the indictment by clicking onto it and hitting print. 

Case 1:06-cr-00018-PB Document 35 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 3
2

The motion (document no. 30) is frivolous and untrue with regard

to this claim. 

Defense counsel claims to have had problems “opening” the CD

containing the discovery but never picked up the phone to call to

seek help from Attorney Feith. Apparently, defense counsel got

access. 

Defense counsel now complains about redactions in general

but not a single one in particular. Again he made no effort to

“meet and confer” prior to filing his motion. The government

maintains that the redactions are limited to information which

“could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy” 5 U.S.C. § 552(B)(7)(c)(2006). As

such they are required to be redacted. Other redactions were

made under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(a). Unless and until counsel can

point to redaction of information necessary to defense of the

case he is entitled to no more than what he got. 

The motion (document no. 30) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 6, 2006

Case 1:06-cr-00018-PB Document 35 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 3
3

cc: Richard N. Foley, Esq.

 William E. Christie, Esq.

 Donald A. Feith, Esq.

 U.S. Probation

 U.S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00018-PB Document 35 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Cr. 

Dominick Bailey

PRAECIPE FOR WARRANT

The Clerk of said Court will issue warrant, an Indictment against the abovenamed defendant having been filed in the above-entitled case on the 28th day of

September 2005.

This 28th day of September 2005.

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO

United States Attorney

/s/ Debra M. Walsh 

Debra M. Walsh

Assistant U.S. Attorney

WARRANT ISSUED: 

Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 2 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WILLY TIBBS JACKSON

Defendant.

8:23MJ257

1:14CR215

Magistrate Judge Nelson

RULE 32.1 ORDER

A Petition and Warrant (charging document) having been filed in the district court for the Western 

District of Michigan charging the above-named defendant with alleged violation of supervised 

release, and the defendant having been arrested in the District of Nebraska, proceedings to commit 

defendant to another district were held in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 32.1. The defendant 

had an initial appearance here in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P.32.1.

Additionally, 

☒ The defendant waived an identity hearing and admitted that he/she was the person named 

in the aforementioned charging document.

☒ The defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination.

☒ The government did move for detention.

☒ The defendant was given a detention hearing in this district.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendant is held to answer in the prosecuting district.

☒ Defendant has been unable to obtain release under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3141 et.seq. and the U.S. Marshal is commanded to take custody of the above named 

defendant and to transport the defendant with a certified copy of this order forthwith to the 

prosecuting district specified above and there deliver the defendant to the U.S. Marshal for 

that district or to some other officer authorized to receive the defendant, all proceedings 

required by Fed.R.Cr.P.40 having been completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2023.

s/ Michael D. Nelson

U.S. Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00257-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 05/03/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 56
EXHIBIT 34.1

 



 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (the "Company") complied with
      the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv),
      1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the asset-backed
      securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
      opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
      about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in
      compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
      period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
      noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
      examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.



In our opinion, management's assertion that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 to
      December 31, 2019 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ CohnReznick LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 18, 2020
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.6


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code


     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings
L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.




                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    May 5, 2005
Exhibit
10.9


 


Horn
& Co. Draft – June 27, 2018


 


Amendment
to Amended and Restated Software Services Agreement


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated June 27, 2018 and
effective as of October 1, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by and between INX Ltd., a
company organized under the laws of Gibraltar (the “Company”) and Committed Ltd., a company organized under
the laws of the State of Israel (the “Service Provider”). Each of the Service Provider and the Company shall
sometimes be referred to as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into a Software Services Agreement, dated as of the Effective Date, as amended by the Amended and Restated
Software Services Agreement on May 9, 2018 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to amend the Agreement, as further set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows:


 


	1.	Capitalized
    terms not otherwise defined herein shall bear the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
	 	 
	2.	The
    date “June 30, 2018” set forth in Section 3.3 and 14.5 of the Agreement is hereby replaced by the
    following date: “September 30, 2018”.
	 	 
	3.	Unless
    amended hereby, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	/s/
    James Crossley	 	 
	INX
    Ltd.	 	Committed
    Ltd.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

Respondent

v.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 662 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

Does a reviewing court abuse its discretion by remanding a RTKL appeal to the 

OOR for additional fact-finding where: (i) the reviewing court concludes that the 

agency has failed to meet its burden of proving the applicability of the only RTKL 

exception at issue in the case; (ii) the agency has never requested additional factfinding or identified additional facts that, if added to the record, would support 

application of that RTKL exception; and (iii) there is no fact in dispute other than 

the ultimate question whether the record at issue is exempt from disclosure under 

the RTKL?

The Applications for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in favor of Allowance of 

Appeal submitted by (i) the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association and (ii) the Alliance for 

Police Accountability, the National Police Accountability Project, and the Thomas Merton 

Center are hereby DENIED as moot.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SABRINA WARD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC.,

Defendant.

8:23CV212

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulations of Dismissal with 

Prejudice of Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Filing No. 54). The Court, 

being advised in the premises, finds that such an Order is proper.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Experian Information Solutions, Inc. be 

dismissed in its entirety with prejudice with each party to bear their own fees and costs.

Dated this 29th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00212-JFB-MDN Doc # 55 Filed: 12/29/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 156