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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC 

ORDER 

At the tenth case management conference on July 13, 2017, the Court and parties 

discussed the discoverability of communications between Plaintiffs’ experts, with the 

Court attempting to provide some guidance on its interpretation of Rule 26(b)(4). 

See Doc. 6765. The Court thereafter directed Plaintiffs to produce to Defendants all 

discoverable communications among their experts and to provide a privilege log that 

identifies the specific basis on which Plaintiffs conclude that any communications are 

protected under Rule 26(b). Doc. 6799 at 2. 

In their recent status report, the parties raised a dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ 

production of the expert communications and privilege log. Doc. 7854 at 11-17. 

Plaintiffs state that they have produced all communications between attorneys and 

experts excepted from Rule 26(b)(4)’s protection and, with one exception, have produced 

every communication between experts even if attorneys were copied on the 

communications. Id. at 12. Defendants take the position that every communication from 

an expert either needs to be produced or listed on a privilege log. Id. at 13-14. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8315 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The dispute was addressed at the eleventh case management conference on 

October 5, 2017. See Doc. 8144. The Court declined to require a privilege log but, with 

the parties’ consent, directed Plaintiffs to submit the expert communications withheld for 

in camera review of ten randomly selected communications. Doc. 8113 at 1. Plaintiffs 

provided the communications to the Court on October 13, 2017. See Doc. 8182. 

The Court has completed its review and finds that the communications are 

protected by Rule 26(b)(4) and were properly withheld. See Izzo v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01142-JAD-NJK, 2016 WL 593532, at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2016) 

(finding that the withholding party met its burden of showing that expert-attorney 

communications did not fall within one of the exceptions to Rule 26(b)(4)(C)). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs need not produce the withheld expert 

communications or provide a privilege log on these communications to Defendants. 

 Dated this 20th day of October, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8315 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PER SECTION 906

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 Annual Report of ICOP Digital, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, David C. Owen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|                                    
|/s/ David C. Owen                   
|David C. Owen                       
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

March 20, 2009
Exhibit
10.113


 


TheMaven,
Inc.


 


2020
Outside Director Compensation Policy


 


Adopted
by the Board of Directors as of January 1, 2020


 


TheMaven,
Inc. (the “Company”) believes that the granting of equity and cash compensation to its members of the Board
of Directors (the “Board,” and members of the Board, “Directors”) represents a powerful
tool to attract, retain and reward Directors who are not employees of the Company (“Outside Directors”). This
Outside Director Compensation Policy (the “Policy”) is intended to formalize the Company’s policy regarding
cash compensation and grants of equity to its Outside Directors. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this
Policy will have the meaning given such term in the Company’s 2019 Equity Incentive (the “Plan”). Outside
Directors will be solely responsible for any tax obligations they incur as a result of the equity and cash payments received under
this Policy.


 


Annual
Stock Award to Outside Directors: Each Outside Director will on January 1 of each year (or, if later, on the date of the first
meeting of our board of directors or compensation committee occurring on or after the date on which the individual first became
an Outside Director) be granted a Restricted Stock Award (the “Director Award”) of a number of shares of common
stock of the company with an aggregate value of $50,000 (pro rata for partial years), based on a per share price equal to the
closing sale price of the Common Stock on the trading day immediately preceding the date of the Director Award.


 


Annual
Stock Award to Committee Chairs: An Outside Director who serves as the chairperson of one or more committees of the board,
will on January 1 of each year (or, if later, on the date of the first appointment as chairperson of a committee) be granted a
Restricted Stock Award (the “Chair Award”) of a number of shares of common stock of the company with an aggregate
value of $50,000 (pro rata for partial years), based on a per share price equal to the closing sale price of the Common Stock
on the trading day immediately preceding the date of the Chair Award. Each Outside Director may only receive one Chair Award,
regardless of the number of committees chaired.


 


The
shares underlying each Director Award and Chair Award will vest in equal monthly installments commencing on the last day of the
calendar month in which the Award was made and ending on December 31 of such year, subject to continued service as a director
or chairperson, as applicable, through the applicable vesting date.


 


Cash
Compensation: Each Outside Director other than the Chairman of the Board (the “Chairman”) will receive
$25,000 annual cash compensation and the Chairman will receive $30,000 annual cash compensation, payable quarterly in arrears
on a pro rata basis.
APPROVED z. a4 Director * 

Date M-4 S,l7re w 

w -
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: )

PHILIP BULLARD, ) Cause No. DA-22-0596

)

Petitioner/Appellant, )

) ORDER FOR MOTION FOR 

and ) THIRTY DAY EXTENSION

) TO FILE REPONSE BRIEF

WINDY BIRKELAND, ) 

)

 Respondent/Appellee. )

Upon review of the Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for a thirty-day extension to file 

response brief and good cause therefrom;

It is hereby ORDERED that a thirty-day extension has been granted.

_________________________

Montana Supreme Court Judge

cc: Jami Rebsom

 Karl Knuchel

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 31 2023

05/31/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0596
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 4.16


                             SCHEDULE OF SUBSCRIBERS


BPI Canadian Small Companies Fund
956872 Ontario Limited
Interward Corporation
Rockhaven Holdings Limited
YMG Capital Management Incorporated
Acuity Investment Management Incorporated
Beluga NV
Pinetree Capital Corp.
Fallingbrook Investments Limited
Glentel Incorporated
Scott Leckie
Frank Fini
Crothers Leasing Limited
Moise Afriat
Lionel K. Conacher
Kehler International Equities (1990) Incorporated
Jean Gevaert
Ron Kaulbach
Andrew Parsons
Eldon Guay
David J. Grand
Merdoch & Company
Robert F. Wilson
ABC Family Trust
Third Point Partners LP
Third Point Offshore Fund Limited
Points West International Investments Limited
Banzai Partners LP
Banzai Offshore Fund Limited
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ramon Rossi Lopez – rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

(California Bar Number 86361; admitted pro hac vice) 

Lopez McHugh LLP 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, California 92660 

949-812-5771 

Mark S. O’Connor (011029) – mark.oconnor@gknet.com

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. 

2575 East Camelback Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 

602-530-8000 

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In Re Bard IVC Filters Products 

Liability Litigation 

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

SECOND NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING 

PREEMPTION 

(Assigned to the Honorable David G. 

Campbell) 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

Plaintiffs file this Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of their Response in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Preemption 

(“Preemption Opposition”) [Doc. 7369] to Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular Inc.’s (“Bard’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Federal Preemption 

(“Motion”) [Doc. 5396]. Plaintiff offers the following supplemental authority: 

Eghnayem et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp. No. 16-11818, 

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:14-cv-24061-JRG and 1:14-cv-24064-

JRG (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2017) (holding that District Court did 

not abuse its discretion when it “concluded that the 510(k) 

review process is not relevant to a product’s safety” and 

excluded defendants’ 510(k) clearance evidence). 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8384 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiffs hereby submit Exhibit A as supplemental authority to their response in 

opposition to Bard’s similarly-based Motion for Summary Judgment Related to Federal 

Preemption regarding its IVC filters in the above captioned matter. The above cited 

authority--specifically pages 22-23--is relevant to Plaintiffs’ response to Bard’s Motion 

arguments claiming that FDA’s review evaluates and determines the safety and efficacy of 

medical devices cleared via the 510(k) process in the post-Safe Medical Devices Act 

(SMDA) of 1990 period. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of October, 2017. 

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 

By: /s/ Mark S. O’Connor__________ 

Mark S. O’Connor 

2575 East Camelback Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 

LOPEZ McHUGH LLP 

Ramon Rossi Lopez (CA Bar No. 86361) 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, California 92660 

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of October, 2017, I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ Gay Mennuti 

6260983 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8384 Filed 10/24/17 Page 2 of 2
#### W. A. Griffith and Jones *v.*W. C. Conway.

Land — Sale in Gross — Fraud or Mistake — “More or Less.”

When a vendor knows the tract of land he is selling does not contain the number of acres represented, he cannot shield himself from this presumed fraud or mistake by adding the words “more or less.”

• Same — Criterion of Abatement.

The true rule is the abatement for the difference in the value of the property as it was at the' time of the sale, and as it was represented to be.

APPEAL FROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 6, 1868.

Opinion of the court by

Judge Williams:

Appellant Jones sold to appellee Conway a lot of ground with its improvements, in Hack Koure, representing it verbally and in his deed to Conway, as containing six acres and three-quarters, more or less; it really contained only six poles over 4 3-4 acres, and was sold tceo Jones by Griffith as containing the latter number of acres and so described in his deed to Jones.

The sale by Jones to Conway was in gross, at the price of $1,200, in four annual instalments, for which notes were executed, *331all of which seem to have been paid but the last, and it had been assigned by Jones to Griffith.

*Kennedy, for appellant.*

*Nowell; Stanton*& *Tfor appellee.*

Conway asks that a prorata deduction be made and the court did allow him $300, and this is the matter in controversy.

As determined by this court at its present sitting in Sharpe vs. Powel, when a vendor knows the tract of land he is selling does not contain the number of acres represented, he cannot shield himself from this presumed fraud or mistake by adding the words “more or less.” But the main controversy in this case turns upon the measure of the deduction which should be made, the vendee insisting that he purchased the place as a situation for a blacksmith shop and wagon yard, and that a pro rata deduction of the whole purchase price should be made according to the number of acres; appellants, on the other hand, insist that the improvements constitute the main value and that the land was not worth more than some sixty or seventy-five dollars per acre, and that as the vendee got all the improvements, he is only entitled to a deduction for the value of the land without these.

But as decided by this court in Fall vs. McMurdy 3 Met. 3J0, neither of these contain the true criterion in cases of town property when the improvements formed the principal element of value, but in such case, the true role is the abatement for the difference in the value of the property as it was at the time of the sale, and as it was represented to be, taking into consideration the location, size and value of the lot, with its improvements, and the purposes for which it was bought and designed to be used. With this criterion, we are not prepared to say the court below erred in the amount of abatement.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

(See John Sharpe vs. Powell & Adams, page-)
EXHIBIT
32.1 & 32.2
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Senticore, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay Patel, Chief
Executive Officer, and Carl Gessner, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Jay
Patel
 ------------------------
 Jay
Patel
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 April 15,
2005
 
 /s/ Carl
Gessner
 ---------------------------------
 Carl
Gessner
 President,
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
 
 April 15,
2005
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nestor Santos, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 101]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGer*412ald, J.), rendered April 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and gang assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of gang assault was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence established that defendant was aided by two persons actually present, as required by Penal Law § 120.07, and not just one person as he asserts. The statute contains no requirement that a defendant request the aid of others, or conspire with them in advance of the crime. The evidence, with particular reference to defendant’s own statements, establishes that when defendant’s second companion joined in the attack by kicking the victim, he intended to join in the assault that defendant and his other companion had begun, and was not acting separately *(see People v Allah,*71 NY2d 830 [1988]). Furthermore, the assault continued after the second friend joined in, with all three men aiding each other while intending to cause serious physical injury to the victim. The evidence warrants the conclusion that the second friend shared the other men’s anger at the victim’s insulting comments directed at defendant and the first companion. Furthermore, the jury could have reasonably concluded that when the second companion went through the fallen victim’s pockets, this was merely an afterthought on the second companion’s part and did not evince a situation where a person intent on larceny takes advantage of a separate assault committed by someone else.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the manslaughter conviction is unpreserved and we *decline to*review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would similarly find that the evidence established defendant’s liability for the acts of both of his friends, and satisfied the element of causation.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel contention is based primarily on matters outside the record, including counsel’s strategy in jury selection, and thus would require a CPL 440.10 motion *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). To the extent the present record permits review, it shows that defendant received effective assistance *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant’s challenge to the criteria employed by the court in imposing a sentence that was within statutory limits, including his constitutional argument, is unpreserved and unavailing.

*413Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
#### IN THE MATTER OF DETECTIVE SEAN DOUGHERTY.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2398

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 324 TwentyFifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen

Federal Building.

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

2

S 2398 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth

3 Street in Ogden, Utah, shall be known and designated as

4 the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate July 19, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2398

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 324

James V. Hansen Federal Building.Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Aeronautics Dream with Us Design Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"g9vXaBXqZH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-aeronautics-dream-with-us-design-challenge\/\">NASA Aeronautics Dream with Us Design Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-aeronautics-dream-with-us-design-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=g9vXaBXqZH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Aeronautics Dream with Us Design Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"g9vXaBXqZH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/dream-with-us-1f.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":432}
#### Charles L. Harrison, Trustee et al *v.*G. Schluder et al.

Fixtures — Landlord and Tenant.

' A claim of a tenant to have buildings, put upon the leased premises for his convenience and for the purpose of trade, considered as personal property, is to be considered with the greatest latitude and indulgence. And is held, that the Circuit Court did not err in so considering the claim of appellee.

APPEAL FROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 5, 1868.

*Gibson*& Fox, *for appellant.*

*Fembitz, for appellee.*

OPINION OE THE CouRT BY

JüDGE PETERS :

In Johnson’s Exr. vs. Wiseman’s Exr. 4 *Met.*357, this court said questions respecting the right to what .are called fixtures arise between three classes of persons:

1. Between heir and executor, and there the rule obtains with most rigor in favor of the -inheritance; and against the right to consider as a personal chattel anything which has been affixed to the freehold. 2. Between the executor of a tenant for life and the remainderman, or reversioner, and here the right to fixtures is considered more favorably to executors. 3. Between landlord and tenant; and here the'claim to have articles considered as personal property is received with the greatest latitude and indulgence. 4. There is still an exception of a broader character in respect to fixtures erected for the purposes of trade.

The controversy in this case is between the tenant and the vendee of the landlord who occupies the place of landlord, and the rule is between such that a claim of the tenant to have buildings put on the leased premises for his convenience, and for the purposes of trade, considered as personal property, is to be considered with the greatest latitude and indulgence. And applying this rule to the present case there appears to be no error in the judgment of the court below. And the same is therefore *affirmed.*