alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 1 of 25 PageID: 8465

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 2 of 25 PageID: 8466

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 3 of 25 PageID: 8467

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 4 of 25 PageID: 8468

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 5 of 25 PageID: 8469

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 6 of 25 PageID: 8470

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 7 of 25 PageID: 8471

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 8 of 25 PageID: 8472

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 9 of 25 PageID: 8473

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 10 of 25 PageID: 8474

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 11 of 25 PageID: 8475

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 12 of 25 PageID: 8476

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 13 of 25 PageID: 8477

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 14 of 25 PageID: 8478

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 15 of 25 PageID: 8479

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 16 of 25 PageID: 8480

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 17 of 25 PageID: 8481

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 18 of 25 PageID: 8482

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 19 of 25 PageID: 8483

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 20 of 25 PageID: 8484

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 21 of 25 PageID: 8485

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 22 of 25 PageID: 8486

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 23 of 25 PageID: 8487

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 24 of 25 PageID: 8488

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1103   Filed 10/28/09   Page 25 of 25 PageID: 8489
Exhibit
      32.1


Certification
      of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002








The
      undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-KSB filed
      by
      Weststar Financial Services Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended
      December 31, 2007, 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 that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the
      periods presented therein.

















Date:   March
                5, 2008
            
            /s/
                G. Gordon GreenwoodG.
                Gordon GreenwoodPresident  &
                Chief Executive Officer




55
Order entered July 14, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01375-CV

ROGER K. PARSONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR THE ESTATE OF ESTHER ANN KARTSOTIS PARSONS, Appellant

V.

MICHAEL KEVIN QUEENAN AND THE QUEENAN LAW FIRM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00971

ORDER

By letter dated May 13, 2016, the Court was notified appellant’s attorney, Christopher 

Nygaard, was deceased. By order dated May 26, 2016, we directed the Clerk of the Court to 

remove Christopher Nygaard as attorney of record for appellant and ordered appellant to notify 

the Court of the name and contact information of new appellate counsel, or to inform the Court 

appellant would be representing himself for the remainder of the appeal. On June 27, 2016, 

appellant filed a “notification in compliance” with out May 26, 2016 order in which appellant 

seeks a “sua sponte equitable bill of review.” Although difficult to ascertain, it appears appellant 

is, in part, contending our May 26, 2016 order was erroneous because he cannot represent the 

estate of Esther Ann Kartsotis Parsons because he is not licensed to practice law in Texas. We 
agree with appellant he cannot represent the estate in this appeal. See Steele v. McDonald, 202 

S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex. App—Waco 2006, no pet.).

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to notify the Court of the name and contact 

information of appellate counsel to represent the estate in this appeal within THIRTY DAYS of 

the date of this order. In the event appellant fails to provide the Court with the required 

information, the appeal will proceed with appellant representing himself regarding any individual 

claims, and any claims on behalf of the estate of Esther Ann Kartsotis Parsons will be dismissed 

without further notice. Because briefs in this case have been filed and the case is at issue, the 

case will be set for submission in due course, but not within the next thirty days.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


NAME OF SUBSIDIARY (JURISDICTION)                                OWNERSHIP
---------------------------------                                ---------

  IVANHOE ENERGY HOLDINGS INC. (Nevada)                          100%
    Ivanhoe Energy (USA) Inc. (Nevada)                           100% (indirect)
    Ivanhoe Energy Royalty Inc. (Nevada)                         100% (indirect)
    Ivanhoe Energy Petroleum Projects Inc. (Nevada)              100% (indirect)

  IVANHOE ENERGY INTERNATIONAL VENTURES INC. (BVI)               100%
    Ivanhoe Energy Sweetwater Limited (Malta)                    100% (indirect)
    Ivanhoe Energy (Middle East) Inc. (BVI)                      100% (indirect)
      Energy Resources Development Japan Corporation (Japan)     100% (indirect)
    Ivanhoe Energy (Latin America) Inc. (BVI)                    100% (indirect)

  IVANHOE ENERGY INTERNATIONAL INC. (BVI)                        100%

  SUNWING HOLDING CORPORATION                                    100%
    Sunwing Energy Ltd. (Bermuda)                                100% (Indirect)
      Sunwing Zitong Energy Ltd. (BVI)                           100% (indirect)
      Sunwing Management Limited (Hong Kong)                     100% (indirect)
      Pan-China Resources Ltd. (BVI)                             100% (indirect)
      Dagang Resources Ltd. (BVI)                                100% (indirect)

  IVANHOE ENERGY ADVISORY INC. (BVI)                             100%

  IVANHOE MERGER SUB, INC. (Delaware)                            100%
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(609) 989-2040

CHAMBERS OF

TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. COURTHOUSE

402 E. STATE STREET, RM 6052

TRENTON, NJ 08608

September 25, 2012

LETTER ORDER

Re: Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al. v. Mylan Inc., et al.

Civil Action No. 11-2506 (JAP)

Dear Counsel:

The Court received your joint letter dated September 19, 2012, concerning the remaining

schedule to be set in this matter. After considering the parties’ proposals, the Court adopts the

following schedule:

Event Deadline

Submission of Joint Letter Regarding Any

Outstanding Discovery Issues

December 12, 2012

Telephone Conference (Plaintiffs to Initiate) December 19, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. 

Close of fact discovery December 31, 2012

Expert Reports on issues for which the party

bears the burden of proof

January 21, 2013

Rebuttal Expert Reports (including secondary

considerations)

February 18, 2013

Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 94 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1914
Event Deadline

Reply Expert Reports (in relation to issues that

the party bears the burden and allows for

Defendants to rebut secondary considerations)

March 4, 2013

Opening Summary Judgment Motions To be Filed in accordance with the Local

Civil Rules

Close of Expert Discovery April 1, 2013

Submission of Proposed Joint Final Pre-Trial

Order

April 19, 2013

Final Pre-Trial Conference May 1, 2013 at 11:00 A.M.

Trial (5-7 Trial Days) To be Set by the Court

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 94 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1915
#### In the Matter of Anne McKenna Faraldo, Petitioner, v Albert Tomei, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 849]

*735The petitioner failed to join and serve necessary parties to the proceeding including, inter alia, Laura McKenna and Christine M. Kessler *(see*CPLR 1001, 7804 [i]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
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: November 29, 2006


By: /s/ Altaf Alimohamed
   ---------------------------------
   Altaf Alimohamed
   President and CEO
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 51
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 52
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 53
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 54
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 55
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 56
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 57
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 58
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 59
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 60
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 61
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 62
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 63
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 64
Case 2:11-cv-01197-ES Document 3 Filed 01/25/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 65
Ex 10c25 2012 10-K






Exhibit 10(c)25
AMENDMENT OF RETENTION AWARD AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDED RETENTION AWARD AGREEMENT (Amendment) is made and entered into by and between SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC. (Company) and JOSEPH A. MILLER (Employee), effective January 1, 2013.
W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into a Retention Award Agreement effective as of January 1, 2013, related to awards of CBAs and RSUs granted as of January 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement to provide that CBAs vested under the terms of the Agreement are Incentive Pay under the terms of the Southern Company Deferred Compensation Plan, as Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2009, and any subsequent amendments thereto (Deferred Compensation Plan).


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the agreement of the parties set forth in the Agreement and this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
(1) Section 1 of the Agreement is modified by adding the following provision at the end of Section 1: 
CBAs are “Incentive Pay” as that term is defined under Deferred Compensation Plan.  RSUs are not Incentive Pay.  


(2) Section 2(a) of the Agreement is modified by adding the following provision at the end of Section 2(a):
Notwithstanding the foregoing, payment of vested CBAs may be deferred under the terms of the Deferred Compensation Plan provided all requirements of that plan are met, including the timing of elections to defer payment of a CBA and any required delays in payment that may be required under the terms of that plan. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties this 10th day of December, 2012.




	
					
	 
	 
	 
	“COMPANY”
SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC.


By:  /s/Stacy Kilcoyne
Its:   Vice President


“EMPLOYEE”
JOSEPH A. MILLER


/s/J. A. Miller
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

[LOGO]   Gilbert Laustsen Jung
         Associates Ltd.   Petroleum Consultants
         4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2
         (403) 266-9500    Fax (403) 262-1855



                                LETTER OF CONSENT






TO:      IVANHOE ENERGY INC.


Dear Sir:


We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Form 10-K of Ivanhoe Energy Inc. for
2004, of our report dated February 15, 2005 on oil and gas reserves of Ivanhoe
Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries.


                                                 Yours very truly,

                                                 GILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG
                                                 ASSOCIATES LTD.

                                                 "ORIGINALLY SIGNED BY"

                                                 Wayne W. Chow, P. Eng.
                                                 Vice-President


Dated: February 22, 2005
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONALD LEE, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 

v.

TOMAS PADILLA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Civil Action Number: 2:11-1463

OPINION

HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI

ORDER

For the reasons elaborated in the memorandum opinion filed contemporaneously with 

this Order, 

IT IS on this 9th day of August, 2011;

ORDERED that Defendant Zisa’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part, and 

DENIED in part; 

Specifically: 

Count I: Lee’s First Amendment claim against Zisa is DISMISSED.

Count II: Lee’s CEPA claim is dismissed against Defendants Zisa, Padilla, and the City 

of Hackensack. I.e., Count II is DISMISSED. 

Count IV: O’Connor’s First Amendment claim against Zisa is DISMISSED. 

Count VI: Riotto’s Due Process claim against Zisa is DISMISSED. 

Count VII: Riotto’s federal conspiracy claim is DISMISSED.

Count VIII: Riotto’s civil conspiracy claim against Zisa is DISMISSED.

Count IX: Lee’s Free Speech/Freedom of Association-related claim against Zisa is 

Case 2:11-cv-01463-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 822
2

DISMISSED. O’Connor’s Free Speech/Freedom of Association-related claim against 

Zisa is DISMISSED. Riotto’s Due Process-related claim against Zisa is DISMISSED. 

The following counts will go forward: 

Count I: Lee’s First Amendment claim against Padilla will proceed.1

Count III: O’Connor’s CEPA claim will proceed. 

Count IV: O’Connor’s First Amendment claim will proceed against Defendants Padilla, 

Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, County of Bergen, and the City of 

Hackensack, but not against Zisa. 

Count V: DeLeone’s First Amendment claim will proceed against Zisa and Padilla. 

Count VI: Riotto’s Due Process claim will proceed against all Defendants except Zisa. 

Count VIII: Riotto’s civil conspiracy claim will proceed against all Defendants except 

Zisa. 

Count IX: Plaintiffs’ claim under NJCRA will go forward except in relation to Lee’s Free 

Speech/Freedom of Association-related claim against Zisa; except in relation to 

O’Connor’s Free Speech/Freedom of Association-related claim against Zisa; and except 

in relation to Riotto’s Due Process-related claim against Zisa. 

Count X: Plaintiffs’ claim against the City of Hackensack will go forward. 

Finally, all conduct by Chief Zisa pre-dating March 15, 2009 or post-dating April 30, 

2010 under any remaining count is barred for the purpose of establishing liability against 

Zisa. s/William J. Martini

_________________________

William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.

 1 With regard to each count that goes forward, the Court’s conclusion is subject to any 

motion to dismiss brought by other Defendants which have yet to be adjudicated. 

Case 2:11-cv-01463-WJM-MF Document 35 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 823
Case 2:11-cv-02315-CCC-JAD Document 9 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 30
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5136 

To amend section 108 of title 17, United States Code, relating to reproduction 

of works by libraries and archives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 

Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Ms. LOFGREN, and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 108 of title 17, United States Code, 

relating to reproduction of works by libraries and archives. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preservation of Or5 phan Works Act’’. 
2 

•HR 5136 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY LI2 BRARIES AND ARCHIVES. 

3 Section 108(i) of title 17, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘(b) and (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(b), (c), 

5 and (h)’’. 

Æ
#### Deborah J. Kontomichalos, Respondent, v County of Nassau et al., Appellants.

[855 NYS2d 175]

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants did not satisfy their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v*
      *507
      *Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied on the affirmed medical reports of their examining orthopedic surgeon and neurologist, which described significant limitations in the range of motion in the plaintiff s cervical and lumbar spines *(see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp.,*43 AD3d 393 [2007]; *Bentivegna v Stein,*42 AD3d 555 [2007]; *Zamaniyan v Vrabeck,*41 AD3d 472 [2007]; *Brown v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.,*33 AD3d 832 [2006]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]).

Moreover, on her cross motion the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of serious injury. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.