alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARNEY M. WATSON, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0452-WS-M

 )

TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES )

INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN, et ) 

al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

In accordance with the parties’ joint stipulation, (Doc. 43), all claims 

against defendant Continental Motors Pension Plan (“Continental”) are dismissed 

without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. See

Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 1980) (Rule 41(a)(1) 

governs dismissal of a single defendant).

The parties’ “stipulation of dismissal as to Count II” of the complaint, 

(Doc. 42), in contrast, is ineffective to accomplish dismissal. While Rule 41(a)(1) 

can be used to dismiss all claims against less than all defendants, it cannot be used 

to dismiss less than all claims against a defendant. Klay v. United Healthgroup, 

Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss 

all of his claims against a particular defendant; its text does not permit plaintiffs to 

pick and choose, dismissing only particular claims within an action.”).1 The 

 1 Accord Bailey v. Shell Western E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710, 720 (5th Cir. 2010); 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 687-

88 (9th Cir. 2005); Gobbo Farms & Orchards v. Poole Chemical Co., 81 F.3d 122, 123 

(10th Cir. 1996); Exxon Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 599 F.2d 659, 662 (5th Cir. 

1979).

Case 1:14-cv-00452-WS-M Document 44 Filed 12/29/14 Page 1 of 2
2

problem is the same when dismissal is sought by motion under Rule 41(a)(2). Id. 

The proper means of dismissing less than all claims against a single defendant is 

by amended complaint. Id. The plaintiffs are thus ordered to file and serve, on or 

before January 12, 2015, either an amended complaint eliminating Count II or an 

acknowledgment that the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 33), is 

due to be granted as to Count II. 

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2014.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

The difference in treatment flows from the language of Rule 41(a)(1), which 

permits the voluntary dismissal of an “action,” not (as in Rule 41(b)) of a “claim”; 

dismissal of all claims against a defendant effectively ends the action as to that defendant 

and so is permitted by the rule. Exxon, 599 F.2d at 662.

Case 1:14-cv-00452-WS-M Document 44 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARRISON BENJAMIN KINNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NOB HILL GRILL; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15255

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-03211-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2018** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit

Judges.

Harrison Kinney appeals the district court’s grant against him of judgment

on the pleadings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm in part and dismiss in part.

FILED

FEB 09 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq., became moot when the restaurant

closed.

Given the absence of any available relief under federal law, the district court

did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); City of Colton v. American

Promotional Events, Inc.-West, 614 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010).

Given our resolution of this appeal, we need not decide any other question

presented by this case.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

2
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
Adopted pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Greg
A. LeClaire, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.
 
 
 
 Date:
      February 13, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Greg A. LeClaireGreg
      A. LeClaireChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 
 
 
 
 A
signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.
and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1965 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1965

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disabilities and Health for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disabilities and Health for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION BIRTH DEFECTS, DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, 
              DISABILITIES AND HEALTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Birth 
Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disabilities and Health for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $155,560,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANICE B. JONES, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00469-KD-B

:

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner :

of Social Security, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B) and dated July 8, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 14) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s attorney is AWARDED an 

EAJA fee in the amount of $3,107.37, payable to Plaintiff, plus court costs of $400.00.

DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of July 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 18 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76344-76345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; The Role of

[[Page 76345]]

Microbial Metabolites in Cancer Prevention and Etiology.
    Date: February 6, 2015.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Room 7W030, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Clifford W. Schweinfest, Ph.D. Scientific Review 
Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W108, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6343, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c1d1dac5d7dbdcd4d7c1c6d1c5f2dfd3dbde9cdcdbda9cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ae9f9f2edfff3f4fcffe9eef9eddaf7fbf3f6b4f4f3f2b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an 
agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted 
when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29842 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NFPA Comment

on

Building and Fire C

& Practices

NIS

T Conference 

on 

World Trade Center Disast

September 13-15, 2005
NIST Study

• Detailed technical analysis• Improved safety of building occu

emergency responders

• Enhanced building performance• Increased effectiveness of emerg

operations
NIST Recommendations

•

NFPA submitted detailed comm

•

Address recommendations throu

–

Codes and standards operations

–

Public education and training 

–

Research Foundation

–

Membership sections 

–

Advisory committees
NIST Recommendations

•

Address a broad range of subject

impact numerous NFPA docume

•

Origins of many prior to 9-11

•

Better understanding of threats, p

phenomenon and human behavio

•

Requires cooperation by many g

meaningful implementation
NIST Recommendations

•

Interdependence

•

Priorities 

•

Research agenda needed
NIST Recommendations

•

9-11 presents one data point

•

Other events need to be examine

•

Do not indicate that current meth

flawed or inadequate

•

Call for improvements and more 

basis for code provisions
High Rise Building Safety A

Committee•

Establish broader agenda 

•

Help prioritize NIST’s and other 

recommendations

•

Next editions of:

–

NFPA 1 –

Uniform F

ire Code

–

NFPA 101 –

Life Safety Code

–

NFPA 5000 –

Building Construction & Safety C

–

Design & installation standards

–

Fire test standards

–

Emergency responder protocols & equipment
Specific Threats/Hazards

•

Risk and hazard analysis

•

NFPA in support of these concep

–

Development of future codes and s

–

Building design and assessment

–

Emergency response plans

•

Greater availability and understa

tools and concepts

•

Must maintain prescriptive and 

performance-based design option
NFPA’s Efforts

•

Performance-based design option

in 1993

•

Guide for the Evaluation of Fire 

Assessments 

•

Provisions for wider stairs 

•

Increased sprinkler protection 

•

Stair decent devices

•

Enhanced structural fire resistan
NFPA’s Efforts

•

New project on Fire Exposures f

Engineering Design of StructuraResistance

• Emergency escape devices•

Use of elevators for evacuation

•

Address broader applications of 

construction, safety and security

•

Human behavior
NFPA’s Efforts

• Leadership in Life Safety Design •

Initiative to exceed minimum bu

requirements

•

Articulate risk/hazard
NFPA’s Efforts

•

NFPA 1600, Standard on 

Disaster/Emergency ManagemenBusiness Continuity

•

Homeland security 

•

Multi-hazard mitigation
NFPA’s Efforts 

•

Timely response

• Continue to work with NIST and •

Identify and facilitate research ef

•

Specific code proposals
[Exhibit 32.2]
                    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 BF Acquisition Group
V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 9, 2006

                                      /s/ William Colucci
                                      ----------------------------
                                      William Colucci, Treasurer
                                      BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD HOLLINGSWORTH, #276260, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00480-WS-B

*

KIM T. THOMAS, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants Carroll and Byrd be dismissed without prejudice from this action, prior to service of 

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.

DONE this 30th day of May, 2014.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 1
7TH AMENDMENT TO 1991 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN






EXHIBIT 4(m)


STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION


AMENDMENT NO. 7
TO THE
1991 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE
AND
DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN


The 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions:


1.    Definitions:  For the purposes of the Plan and this amendment, all capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan.  


2.    Shares Subject to the Plan:  As of May 1, 2007, the total number of common shares available for sale under the Plan was 3,400,000.  In order to increase the number of common shares, without par value, available for sale under the Plan, the first sentence of Section VI of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


The total number of shares to be available under Section IX of the Plan is 3,650,000 common shares, without par value, of the Company (“Stock”) which may be authorized but unissued shares or issued shares reacquired by the Company and held as treasury shares.  


3.    Effective Dates; Construction:  The effective date of this amendment is May 8, 2015; and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date.  In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control.  Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.  


This amendment shall be submitted to the Company’s shareholders for their approval as soon as practicable but in no event later than 12 months after this amendment has been adopted by the Company’s board of directors.  If this amendment is not approved by the Company’s shareholders within such 12-month period, this amendment shall automatically become null and void and have no further force or effect, and the Plan shall continue in effect without this amendment.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 13, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 0150 Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 30463 CC

________________ 

### Henry Tien , Appellant,

vs. 

### Antonia F. Abad , Appellee.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Jacqueline Woodward , Judge. Henry Tien, in proper person

. Cole, Scott & Ki ssane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole and Francesca M. Stein , for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd. , 462 So. 2d 1178, 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (observing that the “real party in int erest” is “the person in whom rests , b y substantive law, the claim sought to be enforced” ) (quoting Author's Comment to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210 ) ; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) ) (providing in pertinent part: “ Every action may be prosecuted in the name of
the real party in interest, but a personal representative, administrator, guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought. All persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded may join as plaintiffs and any person may be made a defendant who has or c laims an interest adverse to the plaintiff. ”) ; LaFrance v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n , 141 So. 3d 754, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“ A ‘ plaintiff's lack of standing at the inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition of standing after t he case is filed ’ and cannot be established ‘ retroactively by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact. ’ ” ) (quoting McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 79 So. 3d 170, 17 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ); Dickson v. Roseville Props

. , LLC , 198 So. 3d 48, 50

- 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ( “For better or for worse, it is settled that it is not enough for the plaintiff to3 prove that it has standing when the case it tried; it must also prove that it had standing when the complaint was filed.” )
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-64246, 333-56576, 333-32666 and 333-103622)
pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2001
Supplemental Plan, and 1999 Equity Incentive Plan of Selectica, Inc. of our
report dated April 22, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Selectica, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended March 31, 2004.

                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
June 14, 2004
#### O. C. Bowles *v.*John N. Watkins.

Judgment in Foreign State — Pleading to Invalidate.

Where it is sought to invalidate a judgment taken in a foreign state, the petition, to be good against demurrer, must aver facts showing that the court rendering such judgment had no jurisdiction. The pleading of mere conclusions is not sufficient.

APPEAL PROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

November 7, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This is an attempt to invalidate a judgment obtained in a Virginia court, subjecting the lands of James Hamilton, deceased, to the payment of his debts. Whether the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction to sell does not appear, nor is it ever stated in what court the proceeding was instituted, or what was the character of this pretended judgment.

If the court had no jurisdiction to sell the land, and the appellees no claim against the estate, the sale passed no title to the purchaser. As the court below was called on to disregard the judgment of the Virginia court and as this pretended judgment is made the basis of appellant's right to recover, there should be some allegation showing a want of jurisdiction over the property sold or the parties entitled to it. The appellant had not purchased all the interest when this sale was made. The court below acted properly in sustaining the demurrer to the petition, but gave the court no means of ascertaining the right of the Virginia court to sell; and the statements upon this *208subject are only the conclusions of the pleader without the facts upon which they are based.

*Apperson & Reid, for appellant.*

*A. J. Auxier, for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1892 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Legislative Counsel 

of the House for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House 

of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office 

of the Legislative Counsel of the House for fiscal year 

2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1892 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES 

3 AND EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF THE LEG4 ISLATIVE COUNSEL OF THE HOUSE FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses 

9 of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House for 

10 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $11,937,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB