alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CELSIS IN VITRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. and Invitrogen Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2010-1547.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Before GAJARSA, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corporation (CellzDirect) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Celsis In Vitro, Inc. (Celsis) opposes. CellzDirect replies. Celsis moves to strike CellzDirect’s reply. CellzDirect opposes.

Celsis sued CellzDirect for infringement of its patent related to methods of making and using multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes. On September 7, 2010, the district *482court granted Celsis’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Celsis had established a likelihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claim, that Celsis had shown it would be irreparably injured absent the injunction, and that the balance of hardships favored Celsis.

CellzDirect appeals the order granting the preliminary injunction and moves to stay the injunction pending disposition of its appeal by this court. To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, nonetheless demonstrate a substantial case on the merits provided that the harm factors militate in its favor. *Hilton v. Braunskill,*481 U.S. 770, 778, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987). In deciding whether to grant a stay, pending appeal, this court “assesses the movant’s chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public.” *E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,*835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed.Cir.1987). *See also Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus.,*897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir.1990).

Based upon the papers submitted, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we determine that CellzDirect has not established the requisite likelihood of succeeding on the merits and thus has not met its burden to obtain a stay, pending appeal.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) CellzDirect’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction is denied. This court’s temporary stay of the injunction is lifted.

(2) Celsis’ motion to strike is denied.

(3) Any other pending motions are moot.
**Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of**

**Magnum Oil Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

** **

I, Patrick DeBlois, certify that:

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Magnum Oil Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick DeBlois, Chief Executive and Financial Officer 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, as amended; 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:  June 15, 2011

/s/ Patrick DeBlois

Patrick DeBlois

Chief Executive Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer

                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 10.1  



Summary of
amendments to the Hudson Highland Group, Inc. 2007 Incentive Compensation Program 



The following is a summary of the
amendments to the Hudson Highland Group, Inc. (the “Company”) 2007 Incentive
Compensation Program. 



Previous formula for calculating
performance bonuses: 



	• 	Achievement
of a single corporate earnings before income tax (“EBIT”) target measured in
both dollars and as a percentage of revenue is required to earn a 100% payout and
achievement of a single corporate EBIT threshold measured in both dollars and as a
percentage of revenue is required to earn a 50% payout. 






New formula for calculating
performance bonuses: 



	• 	With
respect to performance bonuses for Jon F. Chait, the Company’s Chief Executive
Officer, and Mary Jane Raymond, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, there has
been no modification to the previous formula. 






	• 	With
respect to performance bonuses for executive officers and corporate staff of the Company other than Mr. Chait
and Ms. Raymond, the bonus will be earned by tranche based on dollars of EBIT and EBIT as
a percentage of revenue results by region, with a tranche also for corporate performance,
as follows: 






	 	° 	21%
on North America’s EBIT target and threshold





	 	°	21%
on Europe’s EBIT target and threshold





	 	° 	21%
on Australia/New Zealand’s EBIT target and threshold





	 	° 	7%
on Asia’s EBIT target and threshold





	 	° 	30%
on Corporate EBIT target and threshold






A slightly modified formula will
apply to the other corporate staff members.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-320-047]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

December 11, 2001.
    Take notice that on November 28, 2001, Gulf South Pipeline Company, 
LP (Gulf South) filed with the Commission a contract between Gulf South 
and the following company for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate 
transaction. As shown on the contract, Gulf South requests an effective 
date of November 1, 2001.

Special Negotiated Rate Between Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP and 
Willmut Gas Company

    Gulf South states that it has served copies of this filing upon all 
parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31073 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Maffei speaks at the Conference of the Americas and visits Port Canaveral","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fNwwQiHX82\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-maffei-speaks-at-the-conference-of-the-americas-and-visits-port-canaveral\/\">Commissioner Maffei speaks at the Conference of the Americas and visits Port Canaveral<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-maffei-speaks-at-the-conference-of-the-americas-and-visits-port-canaveral\/embed\/#?secret=fNwwQiHX82\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Maffei speaks at the Conference of the Americas and visits Port Canaveral” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"fNwwQiHX82\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
In the Int of RVM, NM,

MBRC, RABC and

SRRC Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2014

N o. 04-14-00531-CV

IN THE INT OF RVM, NM, MBRC, RABC AND SRRC

,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01410

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental

rights. The clerk’s record has been filed. However, one of the three reporter’s records, which

were originally due on August 4, 2014, has not yet been filed. Mr. David R. Zarate is one of the

court reporters responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s records in this

appeal.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(b) requires a court reporter to file a reporter’s

record in an accelerated appeal within ten days. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1(b). Further, with regard to

parental termination accelerated appeals, Rule 28.4(b)(2) states that while we may grant the court

reporter an extension of time, “the extension or extensions granted must not exceed 30 days

cumulatively, absent extraordinary circumstances.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(b)(2).

Accordingly, Mr. Zarate is hereby ORDERED to file his portion of the reporter’s record

in this appeal no later than September 1, 2014

.

Because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the

appellate record is timely filed, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order to be

served upon the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).

sbm

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>5 
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000 
        
<S>                            <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                 Jan-31-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                   Dec-31-1996 
<CASH>                                  63 
<SECURITIES>                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                          341 
<ALLOWANCES>                            (7) 
<INVENTORY>                             51 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       466 
<PP&E>                                3025 
<DEPRECIATION>                       (2399) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        3233 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1726 
<BONDS>                                  0 
<COMMON>                                42 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0 
<PREFERRED>                            135 
<OTHER-SE>                         1100621 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          3233 
<SALES>                               2139 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2139 
<CGS>                                 1617 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         3747 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     103 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1647) 
<INCOME-TAX>                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1647) 
<DISCONTINUED>                         385 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0 
<CHANGES>                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                         (1262) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.30) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.30) 
         

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NICHOLAS RANDOLPH KELLAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00043-WLO)

Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter L. Jones, JONES, FREE & KNIGHT, PLLC, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Randolph Kellam was convicted of two counts of

distribution of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and

sentenced to concurrent 120-month prison terms. He now appeals his

conviction. We affirm.

At trial, Nancy Love Foye testified that her husband,

Edward, was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Based on a

discussion with her husband and in an effort to obtain a reduction

of his prison term, Nancy contacted Kellam and expressed her

interest in purchasing cocaine base from him. She then informed

authorities that she was willing to provide them with evidence of

Kellam’s drug dealing. The authorities accepted her offer, and she

completed two controlled buys of cocaine base from Kellam. 

During closing argument, defense counsel commented on the

fact that the United States did not call Edward Foye to testify. 

Counsel stated that the evidence suggested that Foye and Kellam

were in the drug business together. The district court sustained

the United States’ objection to these statements and instructed the

jury that “whether Mr. Foye was involved in a previous drug

connection is not for you to determine. . . . What is at issue

here is whether Mrs. Foye . . . did the things which . . . cause

you to believe that the defendant committed the crimes with which

he is charged.” 
- 3 -

On appeal, Kellam claims that, in sustaining the

objection, the district court deprived him of a fair trial. We

disagree. Generally, to properly comment on a missing witness, the

party failing to call the witness must have it peculiarly within

its power to call the witness and the witness must be able to

elucidate issues relevant to trial. United States v. Brooks, 928

F.2d 1403, 1412 (4th Cir. 1991).

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sustaining the objection. First, Edward Foye was equally available

to each side and could have been subpoenaed to appear. Second, his

testimony would not have shed light on the issue of whether Kellam

sold drugs to Nancy Foye on two occasions in 2005. 

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

KATHY LAMENDOLA BARNARD NO. 

### 2023 CW 0274 VERSUS PRUDENT ACQUISITIONS, LLC 

### MAY 25, 2023 AND BINNING PROPERTIES, LLC
In Re: Prudent Acquisitions, 

## LLC and Binning Properties, LLC,



## applying for supervisorywrits, 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, No. 164007.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. 

## This writ application fails to comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4- 

### 5(C)( 8). Relators, Prudent Acquisitions, LLC and 

## Binning Properties, LLC, 

### failed to 

### include a copy of the petition(s), the 

## temporary restraining order 

### itself, and 

### any evidence admitted at the 

## January 23, 2023 

## hearing. In addition, this court 

### should be provided with the transcript of the 

## January 23, 

## 2023 hearing and all evidence introduced thereinandadvisethis court ofthe current status ofthe temporary restraining order.

Supplementation of this writ application and/or an application 

### for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 

### Rules 2-18. 7 & 4- 9.

In the event relators seek to 

### file a new application with this court, 

### it must contain all pertinent documentation, the 

## missing items noted above, and must complywith Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 

### 2- 12.2. 

## Any new application must 

### be filed on or before June 

### 22, 2023, and must contain a 

## copyofthis ruling. JMG EW SMM

COURT OF APPEAL, 

### FIRST CIRCUIT 

# LJ DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting
      Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-8 (No. 33-75268 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock
      Purchase Plan, No. 33-80662 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No.
      33-93394 pertaining to the 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, No. 333-29801
      pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 333-60057 pertaining to the 1994
      Stock Option Plan, No. 333-79789 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
      No.
      333-43504 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase
      Plan,
      No. 333-72098 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and No. 333-117193 and
      No. 333-126083 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase
      Plan) and the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-38266, No.
      333-54912, No. 333-116973, No. 333-126084, No. 333-130248 and No. 333-131744)
      of
      InSite Vision Incorporated of our report dated March 15, 2007, with respect
      to
      the consolidated financial statements, management's assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
      of internal control over financial reporting of
      InSite
      Vision Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
      ended December 31, 2006.





/s/
      Burr,
      Pilger & Mayer LLP





Palo
      Alto, California


March
      15,
      2007
EXHIBIT 3.9


                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                                     BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                                 FIND/SVP, INC.


                  The  By-laws of  Find/SVP,  Inc. a New York  corporation  (the
"By-laws"), shall be amended as follows:

      1.    Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of Find/SVP,  Inc. (the  "Corporation")
By-laws be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:

            "Section  2.  CHAIRMAN  OF THE BOARD.  The  Chairman of the Board of
            Directors  shall  preside at the  meetings of the Board of Directors
            and of the shareholders.  Except where, by law, the signature of the
            President is required,  the Chairman shall possess the same power as
            the  President  to  sign  all  certificates,  contracts,  and  other
            instruments of the Corporation  which may be authorized by the Board
            of Directors.  He shall have such other power and perform such other
            duties as the Board of Directors may from time to time prescribe.

            Section 3.  PRESIDENT.  The President in the absence of the Chairman
            of the  Board,  shall  preside  at all  meetings  of  the  Board  of
            Directors and shareholders.  He shall be the chief executive officer
            of the Corporation and have the general  supervision of the officers
            of the Corporation.  He shall sign or countersign all  certificates,
            contracts or other  instruments of the  Corporation as authorized by
            the Board of  Directors,  and shall perform such other duties as are
            incident to his office or are properly  required of him by the Board
            of Directors."

            [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

<PAGE>


            I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of Amendment No. 1 to the By-laws of Find/SVP, Inc., a New York, as in effect on
the date hereof.


DATED: APRIL 11, 2003

/s/ PETER M. STONE
------------------
Peter M. Stone,
Secretary of Find/SVP, Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ifeyhewen BADIDI, also known as Peter Weyee, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20873

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ifeyhewen Badidi has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Badidi has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.