alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
motion for partial summary judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge. 

Petitioners, state medical providers, petition this court for a 

writ of mandamus directing the district court to grant their motion for 

partial summary judgment regarding the proper application of NRS 

41.035's cap on damages to the medical malpractice allegations in this 

case. However, petitioners have not shown that this court should exercise 

its discretion to entertain this extraordinary relief request. We the People 

Nev. ex rel. Angle v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 880, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008). 

First, petitioners have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy: 

they may appeal the district court's damages cap decision upon the entry 

of the final judgment. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 

225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Second, the issue is not a purely legal 

question of first impression with widespread application. See State v. 

Webster, 88 Nev. 690, 695, 504 P.2d 1316, 1320 (1972) (whether one or 

more caps may apply turns on whether the allegations are sufficiently 

"separate, distinct and independent" thus that they may be separately 

maintained); see also Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Richardson Constr., Inc., 

123 Nev. 382, 390 n.11, 168 P.3d 87, 92 n.11 (2007) (collecting cases 

interpreting NRS 41.035). Finally, judicial economy would not be served 

by this court entertaining this writ petition: regardless of how the statute 

applies, the malpractice issues are going to trial Compare Cnty. of Clark, 

ex rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 759-60, 961 P.2d 754, 

761 (1998) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

granting declaratory relief on how NRS 41.035 applied to medical 

malpractice claims before the state actor's liability had been established 

because an immediate decision on the damages caps issue likely would 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
C.J. 

have resulted in a settlement, thus ending the case very early on). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

J. 

J. 

J. 

Gibbons 

ift-411 

Hardesty 

I 

Parraguirre 

 ca8 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Patrick K. McKnight 

Ramzy P. Ladah 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
# Chico Enterprise
...ftecord
400 E. Park Ave. Chico, Ca 95928 530-896

-7702 erlegal@chicoer

. com

BUTTE COILJNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIS l RICT ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE,629 ENTLER AVENUE , STE 15 CHICO CA 95928



## I N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNI 1

## A, I N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF· BUTTE
In The Matter Of 

### Notice of' Public Hearing. 

## AFFIDAV IT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA } 

## ss. COUNTY OF BUTl E
The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: That I am, and at ali i times herein mentioned was a citizen of the Umted States and not a party to nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of 

### The Chico· Enterprise-Record The Oroville Mercury-Register That said newspaper is one of general circulation as defined by· Section 6000 Government Code · of the State· of California, Case No. 26796 by the Superior Court of the· State of California , in and for the County of Butte ; that said newspaper at all times herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and County of Butte; that the noti'ce of which the annexed is a true printed copy , was published in said l newspaper on the followin9 days:

Dated May 10 , 2013 at Chico , California 3/26/2013



# S(j'(\f'(Yo___~ 

# T

**Sf ~.~** 

**,. J2JL**  (Signature ) l egal No

. 

### 0004808962
NOnCE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WORKSHOP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Butte County Air Quality Manage· ment District ( Distri ct) Governing Board 

### will hold 

### a public hearing 

### to co nsider adoption of proposed new Rule 434·Emissions Stat ements to establish emission reporting requir e· ments from specified stati 'onary sourc es i n accordance with the re· quirements of the 1990 C le an Ai r Act, Sect i of'l 182(a) (3)(B)

. The t ime, date , and 

### location o t the public workshop•and hearing are giv

### en below: Public Workshop: Monday , April l s, 2013 at 3 

### p.m., D istrrct O ff i ce, 629 Entle r A ve nue , Suite> 15, Chico , CA. Public Hearing 

### to consider Adoption: Thursd ay, April 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m ., City

**~** Oroville City Hall, 1735 Mont· gomery Street, oroville, CA. The Staff Report and proposed r ules may be reviewed at th e Distr i ct office 

### at the add ress below or on the · Dis· trict webs ite: www.bcaqmd.org. Fo r add itio nal information please con· tact Armen Kamian at (530) 332·9400, 

### ext 108. Written comments on the proposed new rule must be submitted by April 16, 2013 to: Board Clerk, Butte county Air Quality Manage

- ment District, 629 Entler Avenue, Suite 15, C h ico, CA 95928 , DATED: March 2/,2013 By: ; W. James Wagoner AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER Publishes : Marcil 26 , 2013
§ 3931.50 Exploration plan and plan of development modifications. ( a ) The operator or lessee may apply in writing to the BLM for modification of the approved exploration plan or POD to adjust to changed conditions, new information, improved methods, and new or improved technology or to correct an oversight. To obtain approval of an exploration plan or POD modification, the operator or lessee must submit to the proper BLM office a written statement of the proposed modification and the justification for such modification.
( b ) The BLM may require a modification of the approved exploration plan or POD.
( c ) The BLM may approve a partial exploration plan or POD, if circumstances warrant, or if development of an exploration or POD for the entire operation is dependent upon unknown factors that cannot or will not be determined until operations progress. The operator or lessee must not, however, perform any operation not covered in a BLM-approved plan.
### Served: November 26 , 201 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation
on the 2 6th of November , 2013

Essential Air Service at

DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA
JAMEST OWN, NORTH DAKOTA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2785

NOTICE EXTEN DING THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS AT DEVILS LAKE AND JAMESTOWN, NORTH DAKOTA

By Order 201 3

- 10

- 14

, October 28 , 2013, the Department requested proposals for Ess e nti al Air
Service at Devils Lake and Jamestown, North Dakota

, with proposals due no later than
November 26

, 2013. A carrier has requested a one

- week extension to that deadline.

We will grant the extension request. Proposals at Devils Lake and Jamestown a re now due

on December 4 , 201 3

.

Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov
[Graphic omitted] Ahold
                                                        Press Release


                                                        Royal Ahold
                                                        Corporate Communications


                                                 Date:  September 30, 2004
                                  For more information: +31 75 659 57 20




Ahold settles with Dutch Public Prosecutor


Zaandam, The Netherlands, September 30, 2004 - Ahold today announced that it has
reached a settlement with the Dutch Public Prosecutor with regard to the
investigation into side letters. Ahold will pay an amount of EUR 8 million. In
turn, the Dutch Public Prosecutor will not institute proceedings against the
company.

Peter Wakkie, member of the Ahold Executive Board and Chief Corporate Governance
Counsel: "We firmly believe that this settlement is the best solution for all
our stakeholders. This will prevent a lengthy, costly and time-consuming legal
procedure and another investigation into the past can be concluded."


Ahold Corporate Communications: +31.75.659.57.20















                                                  Albert Heijnweg 1, Zaandam
                                                  P.O. Box 3050, 1500 HB Zaandam
                                                  The Netherlands
                                                  Phone:  +31 (0)75 659 5720
                                                  Fax:    +31 (0)75 659 8302
http://www.ahold.com
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

5650 N Miami Ave LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

Scottsdale Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-21702-Civ-Scola

Omnibus Order

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ respective motions for 

clarification arising from the Court’s July 8, 2020 Order dismissing the 

complaint. (Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16; Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 

19; Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 21.) The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint after

the Plaintiff twice failed to file any response at all to the Defendant’s two 

motions to dismiss the complaint. The parties have now filed separate motions

for clarification concerning whether the dismissal of the complaint was with 

prejudice or without prejudice. As the motions seek clarification of the Court’s 

intent, and neither party has responded to the other’s motion, the Court finds 

it appropriate to rule on these motions now and not await additional briefing.

After the Plaintiff failed to respond to the first motion to dismiss, the 

Court entered an order on May 11, 2020, stating that “[t]he Plaintiff is 

cautioned that the failure to comply will result in appropriate sanctions, 

including dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.” (ECF No. 7 

at 1.) After the Plaintiff failed to respond to the second motion to dismiss, the 

Court proceeded to enter an order dismissing this case “without prejudice and 

without leave to amend.” (ECF No. 16 at 4.) However, that same order also 

stated elsewhere that the dismissal was “with prejudice,” which precipitated 

the parties’ motions for clarification. (Id. at 3.) The Court now grants the 

motions for clarification (ECF Nos. 19, 21) to clarify the July 8, 2020 dismissal 

order and now corrects it to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice

and without leave to amend.

Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on August 31, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-21702-RNS Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3815.5 Access to stock watering places.

No watering places shall be inclosed, nor proper and lawful access of stock thereto prevented, nor the watering of stock thereat interfered with.
Exhibit 23.5





                       Consent of Independent Accountants





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated February 13, 2003 relating to the
financial statements of Nusa Tenggara Partnership V.O.F., which appears in
Newmont Mining Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2001. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado

January 22, 2004
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-157897 and 333-140739)pertaining to Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s 1998 Stock Plan, 2006 EquityIncentive Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement(Form S-3 No. 333-163606) and related prospectus pertaining to theregistration of $150,000,000 of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities,warrants and units, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-149935) and related prospectus pertaining tothe registration of $100,000,000 of common stock, preferred stock, debtsecurities, warrants and units and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3No. 333-147706) and related prospectus pertaining to the registration of4,600,000 shares of common stock of our reports dated March 11, 2010, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of OptimerPharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2009.

 
|                  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                  |                           |
| San Diego, California |                           |
| March 11, 2010   |                           |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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 of MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Braun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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:   May 1, 2008 | By:   /s/ Richard J. Braun                |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                 | Richard J. Braun

Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

 

31

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTTIE B. LAY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GILL, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-15190

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01250-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted May 13, 2014*** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Scottie B. Lay appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

FILED

MAY 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo,

see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other

grounds by Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012), and we affirm. 

Lay contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the

time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad

prosequendum. The argument is unpersuasive because he remained subject to the

state’s jurisdiction during the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to the writ. 

See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 1998). The record reflects that the

credits earned during that period were applied to Lay’s state sentence, and

therefore they cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3585(b); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 1998) (section 3585(b)

disallows double crediting for time served). 

Lay also contends that the district court erred when it held his habeas corpus

petition to the “high standard applied to legal findings of lawyers.” The record

does not support this contention.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15190
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:20-cv-21887-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:20-cv-21887-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4586 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4586

   To keep schools physically secure using unobligated Federal funds 
 available to the Secretary of Education to respond to the coronavirus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2022

Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Lankford) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To keep schools physically secure using unobligated Federal funds 
 available to the Secretary of Education to respond to the coronavirus.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Children's Schools 
Act''.

SEC. 2. KEEPING SCHOOLS PHYSICALLY SECURE.

    The unobligated balance of funds made available to carry out 
section 18003 of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136; 20 
U.S.C. 3401 note), section 313 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (division M of Public Law 116-
260; 134 Stat. 1929), and section 2001 of the American Rescue Plan Act 
of 2021 (Public Law 117-2; 20 U.S.C. 3401 note) shall be made available 
to local educational agencies to keep the elementary schools and 
secondary schools served by such agencies physically secure.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 58793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22102]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 58793]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2004-52 of September 24, 
                2004

                
Certification Permitting Rescission of Iraq as a 
                Sponsor of Terrorism

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                On September 13, 1990, Acting Secretary of State 
                Eagleburger designated Iraq as a state sponsor of 
                terrorism (55 Fed. Reg. 37793-01).

                Consistent with section 6(j)(4)(A) of the Export 
                Administration Act of 1979, Public Law 96-72, as 
                amended, and as continued in effect by Executive Order 
                13222 of August 17, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 44025, I hereby 
                certify that:

(1)

 There has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the 
Government of Iraq;

(2)

 Iraq's government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; and

(3)

 Iraq's government has provided assurances that it will not support acts of 
international terrorism in the future.

                Accordingly, the prerequisites for your determination 
                to rescind Iraq's designation as a state sponsor of 
                terrorism will be satisfied once you have transmitted 
                this certification to the Congress.

                This certification shall also satisfy the provisions of 
                section 620A(c)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
                1961, Public Law 87-195, as amended, and section 
                40(f)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act, Public Law 
                90-629, as amended.

                You are authorized and directed to report this 
                certification to the Congress and to arrange for its 
                publication in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 24, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04-22102
Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 355

 353

 350

 365

 371

 380

 371

 374

 386

 390

 375

 387

 385

 399

 428

 421

 431

 444

 440

 438

 432

 417

 425

 451

 423

 431

 450

 467

 472

 473

 477

 318

 327

 332

 336

 334

 338

 338

 337

 341

 347

 348

 347

 351

 361

 368

 371

 374

 378

 381

 382

 385

 386

 390

 394

 389

 393

 404

 413

 420

 432

 445

 330

 336

 338

 344

 347

 348

 346

 348

 353

 358

 356

 357

 363

 373

 382

 385

 389

 394

 398

 398

 398

 396

 404

 408

 402

 404

 415

 428

 438

 448

 457

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
§ 3512.16 How do I sublease my lease? ( a ) You must file one copy of the sublease between you and the sublessee within 90 days from the date of final execution of the sublease.
( b ) The sublessee must also file a signed and dated request for approval and a statement of qualifications (see subpart 3502 of this part), and submit the filing fee for assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights found in the fee schedule in § 3000.12 of this chapter.
( c ) We will notify you with a decision indicating approval or disapproval.
[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 50888, Sept. 5, 2007]