alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,

# FIRSTCIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RODRICK " DRE" COLEMAN NO. 

### 2021 KW 1412


### DECEMBER 30, 2021

In Re: Rodrick " Dre" Coleman, applying for 

### supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton 

### Rouge, No. 

### 02- 13-0950.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATOAND HESTER, 

### JJ.

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. 

### Relator failed to include 

## a copy ofthe application forpostconviction relief, the State' s response, the commissioner' s report, the 

### indictment, and the relevant 

### documents and transcripts 

### from the 

### district court record that would assist with 

### addressing his claims 

## including 

## proofthat hewas convicted bya non -unanimous jury. Therefore, this court cannot 

### adequately review the district court' s 

### ruling at 

### issue herein. Supplementation of this writ application 

## and/or an application for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 

### Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4--9. In the event relator elects to file a new application with this court, 

## he may do so without the necessity of obtaining a return date. The application 

### shall be filed on or before 

## February 8, 2022, and should 

### include the 

### missing 

### items noted above and a 

## copy of this ruling. VGW AHP CHH



### COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### j. DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Catherine Di Cicco, Respondent, against Liebmann Breweries, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Employer and carrier appeal from an award of death benefits in a heart case. Decedent was a helper on a beer delivery truck. On the first delivery on the day of the attack decedent and the driver unloaded five cases of bottled beer weighing from 45 to 50 pounds each. The driver handed three empty cases up from the cellar to decedent, who put them on the truck. The next stop was one 'block away, and there decedent handed the driver a carton of cans of ibeer weighing 20 to 25 pounds. As decedent started to move the next carton he sat down, fell back, and shortly thereafter died. While this was decedent’s usual-work it was described as “fairly heavy work” and, if it were the cause of death, would ordinarily support an award. However, here autopsy revealed no fresh thrombosis, obstruction or heart injury. The cause of death was acute coronary insufficiency and “was due basically to his extreme atherosclerosis and advanced stenosis.” This is from the testimony of the only doctor who testified, that the effort of the work “triggered” the fatal attack. However, he admitted that any effort would be unusual for this man and that because of his underlying disease any effort, even slight effort, might cause death. Consequently, the ordinary wear and tear of life would have produced the same result, and it was the disease and not the work which brought about death. Under such circumstances a mere opinion that the effort of work “triggered” the attack is not substantial evidence of an accident. The ease would seem to come squarely within the rule laid down in *Matter of Burris*v. *Lewis*(2 N Y 2d 323). Award reversed and the claim dismissed, without costs. Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur; Bergan, P. J., dissents, and votes to affirm in the following memorandum: Decedent was performing continued heavy physical work in the midst of which he suffered a heart attack and died. .An adequate hypothetical question was the basis of competent and categorical medical opinion of association between the hard work and his death. In effect the physician said the heavy work put too great a thrust upon the heart and the vascular system already impeded by disease; and he expressed the view that the close continuity without intervening rest between the carrying of the heavy packages and the lighter ones was a factor in the occurrence of the cardiac failure. In many cases similar situations have been treated as accidents. The award should be affirmed.
#### § 26.37 Separation of functions.

No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Government engaged in the performance of investigative, conciliatory, or prosecutorial functions in connection with the proceeding shall, in that proceeding or any factually related proceeding under subpart B of this part, participate or advise in the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, except as a witness or counsel during the proceeding, or in its appellate review.
#### § 882.517 HUD review of contract compliance.

HUD will review program operations at such intervals as it deems necessary to ensure that the Owner and the PHA are in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and the ACC. Equal Opportunity review may be conducted with the scheduled HUD review or at any time deemed appropriate by HUD.

[43 FR 61246, Dec. 29, 1978. Redesignated at 63 FR 23854, Apr. 30, 1998]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Von Braunsberg, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 20, 1976, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. There is no merit to this appeal. We note, however, that some of the comments by the court would better have been left unsaid. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Wright, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and information dismissed. The People have failed to establish -the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of RiskMetrics Group, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007, as filed wit the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
March 31, 2008

|/s/ M. Ethan BermanM. Ethan Berman (Principal Executive Officer) |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.1


                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

I, Janet P. O'Hara, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association,
the Trustee in respect of the STRATS(SM) Trust For Goldman Sachs Group
Securities, Series 2004-8 (the "Trust"), certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Trust, and all reports on Form 8-K filed by the Trustee in respect
            of the Trust and all distribution or servicing reports filed in
            respect of the Trust during the 2005 calendar year;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
            a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered
            by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
            provided to the certificateholders by the Trustee under the trust
            agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Trustee, under the trust agreement and based on my knowledge,
            except as disclosed in this annual report, the Trustee has
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
            Trustee's compliance with the minimum servicing or similar
            standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
            accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
            Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
            procedure, as set forth in the trust agreement, that is included
            in these reports.

Date: March 30, 2006

By: /s/ Janet P. O'Hara
    -----------------------------------------
    Janet P. O'Hara, Assistant Vice President
§ 402.4 Contract renewals under section 524(a)(1) of MAHRA. ( a ) *Initial renewal.* ( 1 ) HUD may renew any expiring section 8 project-based assistance contract at initial rents that do not exceed comparable market rents.
( 2 ) *Procedure for projects eligible for Restructuring Plan.* ( i ) If an owner requests renewal of a contract under this section for a project that is eligible for a Restructuring Plan under the Mark-to-Market program under part 401 and that has not been rejected under that part, HUD or a PAE will determine whether renewal under this section, instead of through a Restructuring Plan under part 401 of this chapter, would be sufficient. Renewal without a Restructuring Plan will be considered sufficient if the rents after renewal would be sufficient to maintain both adequate debt service coverage on the HUD-insured or HUD-held mortgage and necessary replacement reserves to ensure the long-term physical integrity of the project, taking into account any comments received under § 401.502(c) of this chapter.
( ii ) If HUD or the PAE determines that renewal under this section would be sufficient, HUD will not require a Restructuring Plan.
( iii ) If HUD or the PAE determines that renewal under this section would not be sufficient, HUD or the PAE may require a Restructuring Plan before the owner's request for contract renewal will be given further consideration. If the owner does not cooperate in the development of an acceptable Restructuring Plan, HUD will pursue whatever administrative actions it considers necessary.
( b ) [Reserved]
[65 FR 15498, Mar. 22, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 2121, Jan. 12, 2006]
§ 3.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
### Digital database of recently active traces of the Hayward Fault, California

By: James J. Lienkaemper**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds177

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Pamphlet**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Sheet:  **Annotated Map**                            (pdf)
- Companion Files:                               - **Historical Timeline**                            (pdf)
  - **Annotated Map (Page Size)**                            (pdf)
  - **Index Maps**                            (zip)
  - **KM 0-70 Maps**                            (zip) 
- Databases:                               - **ArcGIS Files**                            (zip)
  - **Base Maps**                            (zip) 
- Version History:  **Version History**                            (txt)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

First posted March 7, 2006

**For additional information, contact:**
Contact Pubs Warehouse

#### Suggested Citation

Lienkaemper, J.J., 2006, Digital Database of Recently Active Traces of the Hayward Fault, California (ver. 1.1, November 2008): U.S Geological Survey Data Series 177, https://doi.org/10.3133/ds177.

ISSN: 2327-638X (online)

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—MARITIME LIENS
### §6105. Judicial review

#### (a) Provisions of other laws

Any action by any Federal department or agency under section 6104 of this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by any such department or agency on other grounds.

#### (b) Provisions of chapter 7 of title 5; reviewable agency discretion

In the case of any action by any Federal department or agency under section 6104 of this title which is not otherwise subject to judicial review, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance with the provisions of chapter 7 of title 5. For purposes of this subsection, any such action shall not be considered committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 701(a)(2) of such title.

(Pub. L. 94–135, title III, §306, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 730.)
### §15105. National Boating Safety Advisory Committee

(a) Establishment.—There is established a National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the "Committee").

(b) Function.—The Committee shall advise the Secretary on matters relating to national boating safety.

(c) Membership.—

(1) In general.—The Committee shall consist of 21 members appointed by the Secretary in accordance with this section and section 15109 of this chapter.

(2) Expertise.—Each member of the Committee shall have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience in matters relating to the function of the Committee.

(3) Representation.—Members of the Committee shall be appointed as follows:

(A) 7 members shall represent State officials responsible for State boating safety programs.

(B) 7 members shall represent recreational vessel and associated equipment manufacturers.

(C) 7 members shall represent the general public or national recreational boating organizations and, of the 7, at least 5 shall represent national recreational boating organizations.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title VI, §601(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4283.)
### §6724. Uses of payments

Each State and local government shall use payments made under this subchapter for the maintenance of basic services customarily provided to persons in that State or in the area under the jurisdiction of that local government, as the case may be. State and local governments may not use emergency support payments made under this subchapter for the acquisition of supplies and materials or for construction, except for normal supplies or repairs necessary to maintain basic services.

(Pub. L. 94–369, title II, §204, July 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 1006; Pub. L. 94–447, title II, §201(4), Oct. 1, 1976, 90 Stat. 1498; Pub. L. 95–30, title VI, §604, May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 166.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1977—Pub. L. 95–30 substituted "or for construction, except for normal supplies or repairs necessary to maintain basic services" for "and for construction, unless such supplies and materials or construction are to maintain basic services".

1976—Pub. L. 94–447 substituted "support payments" for "support grants".
EX-10.1


   

  Exhibit 10.1

  FIRST AMENDMENT TO

  LICENSE AGREEMENT

   

  This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 19, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) between Innocoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“INNOCOLL”) and DURECT Corporation (“DURECT”).  

   

  RECITALS

   

  A.	DURECT and INNOCOLL are parties to a License Agreement dated December 21, 2021 (the “Agreement”);

   

  B.	Pursuant to the Agreement, among other things, INNOCOLL licensed the Licensed Product from DURECT; 

   

  C. 	Section I (b) of Exhibit 1.16 of the Agreement provides for a Commercialization Milestone Payment equal to $2,000,000 on the First Commercial Sale of Licensed Product in the Licensed Territory (the “First Commercial Sale Milestone Payment”).

   

  D.	The parties now wish to amend the due date for the First Commercial Sale Milestone Payment.

   

  AMENDMENT

   

  NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

   

  1.	Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms in this Amendment that are not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.  If there is any conflict between the Agreement and any provision of this Amendment, this Amendment will control.

   

  2.	Notice of First Commercial Sale.  This Amendment serves as notice to DURECT pursuant to Section I(d) of Exhibit 1.16 of the Agreement that the First Commercial Sale of Licensed Product in the Licensed Territory occurred on September 13, 2022.

  	 

  3.	First Commercial Sale Milestone Payment.   The Parties agree that notwithstanding Section I (d) of Exhibit 1.16 to the contrary, the First Commercial Sale Milestone Payment shall be due no later than January 15, 2023.  DURECT may invoice INNOCOLL for the First Commercial Sale Payment at any time after September 13, 2022, but such invoice shall have a due date no earlier than January 15, 2023.

   

  4.	No Other Changes.  Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement will continue in full force.   

   

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date.

   

  DURECT Corporation				 	INNOCOLL Pharmaceuticals Limited

  				                                                     

   

   

  By: 	/s/ Jim Brown					        By: 	/s/ Lou Pascarella			

   

  Name:  Jim Brown					        Name:  Lou Pascarella				

   

  Title: 	CEO					        Title: 	CEO					

   

  1
### §665. Utilization of services and facilities of Federal departments and agencies; reimbursement; consultation with Board; coordination of activities with Federal departments and agencies

(a) In carrying out the provisions of this chapter the Secretary may use available services and facilities of other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government with their consent and on a reimbursable basis, and shall consult with the Board in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government shall exercise their powers, duties, and functions in such manner as will assist in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–663, §6, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1977; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §325(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 951.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–88 substituted "Board" for "Interstate Commerce Commission".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transportation.
### SUBCHAPTER II—BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ADJUSTMENT ACT

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Effective date of subchapter, see sections 618i, 620f, 620h, 620m of this title.

#### Consolidation of Certain Projects; Effect on This Subchapter

Consolidation of Parker and Davis Dam projects as not affecting this subchapter, see note set out preceding subchapter I of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7660

DENNIS J. COLEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-9-3-20BC)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis J. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant only filed objections to the dismissal of his claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Therefore, Appellant has waived appellate review of all claims not raised in his objections.

Regarding Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this claim on the reasoning of the district court.

Coleman v. South Carolina, No. CA-96-9-3-20BC (D.S.C. Sept. 30,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED