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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PATRICK WELCH, ET AL. ) 

 ) Case No. 4:11-cv-535 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

vs. ) 

 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MERCK SHARPE & DOHME CORP., ET AL., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. 

DEFENDANT MERCK SHARPE & DOHME CORP.’S 

MOTION TO SEVER

 Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) hereby moves the Court to sever the 

claims of the plaintiffs in this case because they have been improperly joined under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 20. 

 As set forth more fully in the attached memorandum of law, plaintiffs have sought to 

improperly join in one lawsuit the claims of ninety-one different people from twenty-eight

different states who allege injury as a result of using the prescription osteoporosis drug Fosamax 

and/or its generic equivalent, Alendronate Sodium. Plaintiffs do not allege that they were 

prescribed their drugs by the same doctor (a virtual impossibility since they reside in 28 different 

states) – or that they took the drugs for the same period of time. Plaintiffs also fail to allege that 

they have similar medical histories or that they suffered the same injuries. Instead, plaintiffs 

claim to have suffered a wide variety of “severe and permanent personal injuries, including 

weakened or brittle bones, multiple stress fractures, and low energy femoral fractures” as a result 

of their use of defendants’ drugs. (Pet. ¶ 93.) 

Case 3:11-cv-03045-JAP-LHG Document 5 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 118
2 

 Because such claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence under Rule 20 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they cannot be joined in one suit. 

WHEREFORE, Merck respectfully requests that the Court sever plaintiffs’ claims, 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21, so that each plaintiff’s claims can 

proceed in a separate lawsuit. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BRYAN CAVE LLP 

 By: /s/ Dan Ball 

 Dan Ball, 27227MO 

 One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 

 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 

 Telephone: 314-259-2000 

 Facsimile: 314-259-2020 

 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 22, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was 

served via U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the following counsel and filed electronically 

with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system on all 

counsel of record. 

John Driscoll 

The Driscoll Law Firm 

211 N. Broadway, Suite 2400 

St. Louis, Mo 63102 

 By: /s/ Dan Ball 

Case 3:11-cv-03045-JAP-LHG Document 5 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 119
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-19 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 174
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-19 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 175
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-19 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 176
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-19 Filed 06/03/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 177
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Federal Reserve Bank on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad E.
Schwartz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz                                
|                      |  |  |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                    
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1210
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 1211
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 1212
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 1213
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 1214
Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 69 Filed 09/21/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 1215
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Altaf Alimohamed, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10  QSB  of  Pointstar
     Entertainment Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material  fact or omit to state a  material  fact  necessary  to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements
     were made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to the  period  covered by this
     quarterly report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in all  material
     respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and I have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during  the  period in which  this  quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
          the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our evaluation as of
          the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6.   I have  indicated  in this  report  whether or not there  were  significant
     changes in internal  controls or in other factors that could  significantly
     affect  internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of our  most  recent
     evaluation,  including any  corrective  actions with regard to  significant
     deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 15, 2007


By: /s/ Altaf Alimohamed
   ------------------------------
   Altaf Alimohamed
   President and CEO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Tucker, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 126]

Application by the appellant for a writ of coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 3, 1994 *(People v Tucker,*208 AD2d 575 [1994]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 23, 1990. By decision and order of this Court dated December 7, 2004, the appellant was granted leave to serve and file a brief on the issue of whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for his convictions of robbery in the first degree and murder in the second degree was illegal, and the coram nobis application was held in abeyance in the interim. The parties have now filed their respective briefs.

Ordered that the application is granted, and the decision and order of this Court dated October 3, 1994 is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the term of imprisonment imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree (felony murder) shall run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed upon the conviction of robbery in the first degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve the issue of legal sufficiency for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the *prosecution (see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt naturally flowed from the facts proved, was consistent with them, and excluded to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence *(see People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32 [1974]; *People v Tedesco,*143 AD2d 155 [1988]). In addition, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, under no reasonable view of the evidence could the jury find that the defendant would be able to establish an affirmative defense to the charge of felony murder under Penal Law § 125.25 (3). Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied its request for such a charge *(see People v Butts,*72 NY2d 746 [1988]).

*636However, as the People concede, the defendant’s sentence imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree (felony murder) must be modified to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon the conviction of robbery in the first degree, as the robbery constituted the underlying felony for the felony murder conviction, and was a material element of that crime *(see People v Laureano,*87 NY2d 640 [1996]; *People v Riley,*309 AD2d 879 [2003]; *People v Leftenant,*22 AD3d 603 [2005]; *People v Benitez,*281 AD2d 487 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Florio, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





I, Kyle Kennedy, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Seafarer Exploration Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):





(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 April 14, 2014





/s/ Kyle KennedyKyle KennedyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and acting Principal Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

v. Crim. No. 11—459

BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL”CABRERA,: ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

a/k/a “Hermano”

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (by Mary E. Toscano, Assistant U.S.

Attorney), and defendant BIAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA (by Patrick

J. Brackley), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant

being aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and five continuances having

previously been approved by the Court in this matter, and as the

defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good and

sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:.

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

Case 2:11-cr-00459-SDW Document 18 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 39
CD C) CD)

C C) CD

1) cv9 -+ CD

cv CD

cv CD

cv cv

—

cv -TI

cvcv

—

-

cv TI CD

0

C) CD -1

CD C) CD CD

cv CD cv TI

cv CD U)

CD (1) CD

H cv cv

CD Cl. C)

CD CD Cl) Ce

cv cvCD

0 CD

C) CD CD

0

CD cv

U)

H

CD

U) CD

CD CD

cv e- cv

CD C)cv cv CDTI CO

cv U)

cv

çt TI CD

< cv

o cv CD

TI) CD CD

C)

CD C).

cvcv

CD Ce

CD TI CU

cv cv

t

CD UI cvCD Ce U)CD CD

( cv ()

TQ C)

cv cv.

CD cv

CD CD

cv

Co

CD cv

(U (1

cv

:1) CD

cv cv

TI

H

El

H

(I

U)0cv

cv0

CDCD0

TI

cvcv

H

1) CD

cv cv

Ii)

CD CD

Cl C.

1)

Cl

CD

cvcv

CD C)

TIcvCDC

cv

CD

CoCl)CD

CD(U,

UICD

C)

CD

CD

CD

çt (U,

)

cC

C. ‘P

CD )

cv cv CD

cv cv ‘- cvCD TI U) TI

T< CD

CD C) Cl) C) C) CD

C) CO CD cD CD CD

H

TI CD C)CD CD CD ) CD

cv CD CD CD CD CD C1

CD C) CD cv CD

CD

U TI ON CD

CD 1) 0) CD

0 CD CD CD

CD U) CD (I CD 1)

CD C) Cv cv TI

C) cv CD

H CD cv

TI) t- U) TI)

CD CD CD

0

C’ CD CD. CD TICO CD cv TI CD cv

—i cv

0 U)

CD C) • cv cv cv C)

X cv

0 cv

cv cv CD

CD C) CD CD CD

D CD

< C) CD

CD cv CD

CI U)

CD TI CD CD ‘ 0 cv

CD

L C C) 1 4 C) C. ‘ C)

t N) ..

C)

O C)

0 CD cv cvC)

0 cv

H

CD C)

CI - Ci) cv C)

CD C) CD CDCD 1) CD

H

cv CD

C1

cC) C’ cv CD

D

CD C) U) CD CD

H

CD CD cv

C) CD TI C)

‘P cv C) CD

C) CD cv C)

CD CD ON) CD CDcv CD CD

0. CD cvcv CD CD

C) C) cv

CD CD

C’

C) CD

TI)

C

CD C)CD cv

CD

UN CC

CD

C) CD

cv

CD

CD cvcvTI U)cD CD

cv CDcv cvcv

u

0C) cv

U) cC)U) TI

cv cv

TI cv

H C) (U

cvCD

CDCD

0CD

0cv

CDCDCD

cv

TIcv

H

TI

cvcv

CDCr

TI

CD

F)

cv

cv

CD CD

CD•(U

CDU

CD

(I CD

CDZU) H)CDU)cv

U

CD C)

CDTICD CD

CDCD

CD

C4C)D

0.

cC)

cv

Case 2:11-cr-00459-SDW Document 18 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 40
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5245 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5245

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To extend the liability indemnification regime for the commercial space 
                        transportation industry.

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

SECTION 1. INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION.

    Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2004.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009.''.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall enter into an arrangement with a 
nonprofit entity for the conduct of an independent comprehensive study 
of the liability risk sharing regime in the United States for 
commercial space transportation under section 70113 of title 49, United 
States Code. To ensure that Congress has a full analysis of the 
liability risk sharing regime, the study shall assess methods by which 
the current system could be eliminated, including an estimate of the 
time required to implement each of the methods assessed. The study 
shall assess whether any alternative steps would be needed to maintain 
a viable and competitive United States space transportation industry if 
the current regime were eliminated. In conducting the assessment under 
this section, input from commercial space transportation insurance 
experts shall be sought. The study also shall examine liability risk 
sharing in other nations with commercial launch capability and evaluate 
the direct and indirect impact that ending this regime would have on 
the competitiveness of the United States commercial space launch 
industry in relation to foreign commercial launch providers and on 
United States assured access to space.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Jon Suk, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Coastal Media Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Jon Suk
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.13.(a)



 Exhibit 10.13(a) 

Revised Schedule to Severance Agreement 
 Horace Mann Educators Corporation (“HMEC”) and Horace Mann Service Corporation (“HMSC”) entered into severance agreements for change of control with the following persons on the dates
shown. These agreements are substantially similar to the one included as Exhibit 10.13 to HMEC’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 except that the multiple of the highest annual compensation received by the
employee in the five preceding years used to determine a one-time cash payment is equal to the duration listed below. 
  

													
	 Employee
	  	 Duration
	  	
      Original        

Agreement Date
	  	 Replacement

Agreement Date

				
	 Ann M. Caparrós
	  	2.9 years	  	    March 1994	  	December 2011
	 Paul D. Andrews
	  	2 years	  	    July 2001	  	December 2011
	 Bret A. Conklin
	  	2 years	  	    January 2002	  	December 2011
	 Dwayne D. Hallman
	  	2 years	  	    January 2003	  	December 2011
	 Ricky A. Renner
	  	2 years	  	    July 2001	  	December 2011
	 Robert E. Rich
	  	2 years	  	    February 2001	  	December 2011
The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri, adopting the report and rec ommendations of the Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3461

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Travis W. Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED] *

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 31, 1997 Fi led: November 12, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After being charged with drug and firearm offenses , Travis W. Wilson moved to suppress tangible evidence and his incriminatory statements. Following an evidentiar y hear ing at which the arresting officer testified, th e distri ct court denied Wilson & s motions. A jury foun d 1-2-

Wilson gui lty on all three counts of the indictment, and the district court sentenced him to a total o f 168 months impr isonment and four years supervised release. Wilso n appeals, arguing that the court erred in denying his-3-

sup pressionmotions. Having carefully reviewed th e record, we conclude that the court did not err: th e offic er had probable cause to stop the van Wilson wa s driving; d id not exceed the scope of the traffic stop in questioning Wilson to satisfy the officer & s reasonabl e su spicions; was not required to advise Wilson of hi s right s pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 6 (1966), for Wilson was not in custody; had pr obable cause to arrest Wilson without a warrant; and actedproperly in se arching Wilson and the van contemporaneous to Wilson & s arre st. Accordingly, because we believe the distric t court prop erly denied the suppression motions, we affirm Wilson & s convictions. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.