alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2006-0645.

#### State v. Ice.

Columbiana App. No. 05CO72, 2006-Ohio-1470. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of the court of appeals’ judgment,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
98-1951.

#### State v. Robinson.

Clark App. No. 97CA0073. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
2006-0165.

#### State ex rel. Shelly Materials, Inc. v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Clark App. No. 2003-CA-72, 2005-Ohio-6682.

The following case has been returned to the regular docket pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(E):
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 29, 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH CURIALE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUITTER, AXLAND & HANSON;

JESSE C. TRENTADUE; MICHAEL

HOMER,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-4076

(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-850-TC)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Curiale, a pro se litigant, appeals from the

district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights action. Mr. Curiale brought

two claims against Defendants-Appellees, a law firm and two attorneys. The

district court dismissed the first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
- 2 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) finding that Mr. Curiale’s claim of reputational damage

was not a proper § 1983 claim and therefore did not provide a basis for federal

question jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the second claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and review both dismissal decisions de novo. Curley v. Perry, 246

F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2001); Marcus v. Kan. Dept. of Revenue, 170 F.3d

1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999). 

The parties are sufficiently familiar with the facts that we need not restate

them here. Upon reviewing the record and relevant law, we conclude sua sponte

dismissal was appropriate in this case for substantially the same reasons given by

the district court. Harm to reputation alone does not state a proper federal claim,

but rather is a matter for state tort law. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-712

(1976); Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1154

(10th Cir. 2001). Likewise, it is clear from Mr. Curiale’s second claim that “[he]

cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an

opportunity to amend.” Curley, 246 F.3d at 1281. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Edna M. Nichol, Deceased. Peter Fosdick, Appellant; Caryl F. Hammerich, Cross Appellant; Ada Gannon, as Executrix of Edna M. Nichol, Deceased, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to SiOPA 1420 for the construction of article “Fifth” of the testatrix’ will, the petitioner, who is the adopted son of the testatrix’ predeceased sister, appeals, as limited by his brief, from the portion of the decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated August 6, 1968, which excluded him from succeeding to part of the one-fourth share of the residuary estate which would have passed to the predeceased sister. The latter’s daughter cross-appeals from the portion of the decree which adjudged that out of said one-fourth share of the residuary estate the executrix shall pay counsel fees and disbursements in stated amounts to appellant’s and cross appellant’s respective attorneys. Decree modified, on the law, by striking out the first decretal paragraph thereof, which construed the “Fifth” article of the will, and by remitting the proceeding to the court below for the purpose of holding a hearing to enable the cross appel*542lant to adduce extrinsic evidence, if available, of the testatrix’ intention to exclude appellant from sharing in the subject portion of the residuary estate. As so modified, decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The findings of fact below have not been affirmed. The learned Surrogate did not hold a hearing on the petition or entertain oral argument, the determination being rendered on the -pleadings and memoranda of law submitted by the respective attorneys. In our opinion, the presumption to include appellant as an adopted child *(Matter of Park,*15 N Y 2d 413, 417) was not rebutted by *“*an explicit purpose stated in the will ” (cf. *Matter of Silberman,*23 N Y 2d 98). The determination of the Surrogate required a finding of intention from incongruous designations of legatees *in vacuo*and had no factual basis to overcome the *Pa¡rk*presumption which would include appellant as one entitled to share in the bequest of the subject one-fourth portion of the residuary estate. (Cf. *Matter of Ricks,*18 N Y 2d 640.) Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael Wilhelm,, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                /S/ Michael Wilhelm
                                ------------------------
                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                November 16, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB   Document 57-7   Filed 09/28/22   Page 1 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB   Document 57-7   Filed 09/28/22   Page 2 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB   Document 57-7   Filed 09/28/22   Page 3 of 3
2005-2138.

#### State v. Abshear.

Clark App. No. 03CA0012, 2004-Ohio-1322. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2006-Ohio-665, 842 N.E.2d 1054. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Exhibit 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS








ASA International Ltd.
Framingham, Massachusetts




     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 33-312933 of ASA International Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
ASA International Ltd. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003.




/s/ Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.
----------------------------------------

Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.


Providence, Rhode Island
March 30, 2004
Order entered September 10, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00479
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF V .J.M. AND C.M.M., CH ILDREN On Appeal from the 256th Judicial Distr ict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 17
- 20931



### O RDER
The re porter’s record in this appeal is overdue

. As our records reflect appellant requested preparation of the reporter’s record on May 6, 2019 , we ORDER court reporter Glenda Finkle y to file the reporter’s record no later than September 30, 2019. We caution that extension requests will be disfavored absent exigent circumstances.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Finkley and the parties.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ-1

STEVEN LAWRENCE LAKE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated July 2, 2013. (Doc. 234). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The time for filing objections has passed, and

none have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. The government’s motion to dismiss (doc. 223) is GRANTED and petitioner’s

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 218)

is DISMISSED as untimely.
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ-1
1 

TITLE 7 NA ~L RESOURCES & ENVIRONM . rAL CONTROL 


DELAWARE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 


1100 Air Quality Management Section 

1146 Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation 

******** 

Table 5-1 

Annual 502 Mass Emissions Limits 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Unit 

Control Period S02 

Mass Emissions Limit 

(tons) 

Edgemoor 3 1391 

Edgemoor 4 2410 

Edgemoor 5 ~4~7 4600 

Indian River 1 1082 

Indian River 2 1130 

Indian River 3 1759 

Indian River 4 3657 

McKee Run 439 

******** 

( ( 


Regulation No. 1146: Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation 

Table 5-1 


Annual S02 Mass Emissions Limits 


Unit 

Edge Moor 3 


Edge Moor 4 
 2410 

Indian River 4 


McKee Run 3 


Edge Moor 5 
 4600 

Indian River 1 
 1082 

Indian River 2 
 1130 

Indian River 3 
 1759 

Control Period SOl 

Mass Emissions Limit 

(tons) 

1391 _ 

3657 

439
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Caliman.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Caliman*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 461.]

(No. 97-2676

Submitted June 9, 1998

Decided October 28, 1998.)

*William E. Clements*and *Richard H. Johnson,*for relator.

*H. Fred Hoefle,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings of the board. The evidence considered by the panel involved both respondent’s failure to pursue a legal matter and *462respondent’s misrepresentation of the status of that matter to his clients. We therefore adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). In *Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, a case very similar to this, we held that “when an attorney engages in a course of conduct * * * that violates DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” In this case the board recommended that respondent be suspended for six months with the suspension stayed. That recommendation does not follow the *Fowerbaugh ■*prescription of “actual suspension.”

We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for an actual period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

INDEPENDENT PARTY

OF FLORIDA,

and

PARTY FOR SOCIALISM

AND LIBERATION,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv110-MW/MAF

LAUREL M. LEE, Florida

Secretary of State, in her

official capacity,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER CLOSING FILE

The parties have jointly filed a Stipulation of Dismissal. ECF No. 56. Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the dismissal is effective without 

and order from this Court.1

The Clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is dismissed without 

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) with each party to bear its 

1 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice unless the stipulation states 

otherwise. Here, the stipulation does not state otherwise. 

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 57 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2

own costs.” The Clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 25, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 57 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 247.20 Program violations. ( a ) *What are program violations in CSFP?* Program violations are actions taken by CSFP applicants or participants, or caretakers of applicants or participants, to obtain or use CSFP benefits improperly. Program violations include the following actions: ( 1 ) Intentionally making false or misleading statements, orally or in writing;
( 2 ) Intentionally withholding information pertaining to eligibility in CSFP;
( 3 ) Selling commodities obtained in the program, or exchanging them for non-food items;
( 4 ) Physical abuse, or threat of physical abuse, of program staff; or
( 5 ) Committing dual participation.
( b ) *What are the penalties for committing program violations?* If applicants or participants, or caretakers of applicants or participants, commit program violations, the State agency may require local agencies to disqualify the applicants or participants for a period of up to one year. However, if the local agency determines that disqualification would result in a serious health risk, the disqualification may be waived. For program violations that involve fraud, the State agency must require local agencies to disqualify the participant from CSFP for a period of up to one year, unless the local agency determines that disqualification would result in a serious health risk. The State agency must require local agencies to permanently disqualify a participant who commits three program violations that involve fraud. For purposes of this program, fraud includes: ( 1 ) Intentionally making false or misleading statements to obtain CSFP commodities;
( 2 ) Intentionally withholding information to obtain CSFP commodities; or
( 3 ) Selling CSFP commodities, or exchanging them for non-food items.
( c ) *What must the local agency do to notify the individual of disqualification from CSFP?* The local agency must provide the individual with written notification of disqualification from CSFP at least 15 days before the effective date of disqualification. The notification must include the effective date and period of disqualification, the reason for the disqualification, and a statement that the individual may appeal the disqualification through the fair hearing process, in accordance with § 247.33(a).
[70 FR 47063, Aug. 11, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 38751, July 9, 2014]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:95cr3093/LAC 

3:10cv372/LAC/MD

CHARLES SPIGNER

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

This cause comes onfor consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation filed on October 18, 2010. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy

of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made. 

Having considered the report and recommendation, and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc.

288) is summarily DENIED as successive.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of November, 2010. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.106-1956.108 [Reserved]
#### § 28.955 Disposition of samples.

The remnants of samples accumulated in the making of tests under the regulations in this subpart shall become the property of the Government unless the applicant requests that such remnants be returned. Returns will be at the applicant's expense.

[46 FR 30073, June 5, 1981; 46 FR 51593, Oct. 21, 1981]
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1466.38 Soil Health Demonstration trial. ( a ) The Soil Health Demonstration (SHD) shall make use of the OFCIT process, including eligibility requirements, and funding set forth in § 1466.37 to provide incentives to producers to implement conservation practices that improve soil health, increase carbon levels in the soil, or both.
( b ) In carrying out SHD, NRCS shall coordinate with eligible entities to establish protocols for measuring carbon levels in the soil and testing carbon levels on land where conservation practices described in paragraph (a) of this section were applied to evaluate gains in soil health as a result of the practices implemented by the producers in the soil health demonstration trial.
( c ) For each SHD contract, NRCS shall ensure that appropriate data is collected and analyzed while respecting relevant privacy safeguards by transforming the data into statistical or aggregated form so as not to include any identifiable or personal information of individual producers.
Opinion issued July 16 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 12
- 00494
- CV

BENNETTE L. WARREN AND ALLEN T. WARREN , Appellant s V.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10 08503



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Appell ee, Federal National Mortgage Association, moves to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution because appellants, Bennette L. Warren and Allen
T. Warren , have not filed a clerk’s record

. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.2

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b) provides that if the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may, either on a party’s motion or its own initiative, dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b). The appellate court must give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to cure. Id.
The co mplete clerk’s record was due on July 11, 2012. 1 The trial court clerk has informed the Court that appellants have not paid the clerk’s fee for preparing
the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(a ) (2). The trial court held that appellants have not established indigence for costs on appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence). On November 20, 2012, appellee moved to dismiss the appeal because appellant s ha d not fil ed a clerk’s record. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 37.3(b). Appellants did not respond to the motion to dismiss the appeal
and have not filed a clerk’s record

. See id

.

1 Only a partial clerk’s record on indigence has been filed.3

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
See id. W e dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland

.
#### § 27.85 Fees; withdrawn requests or applications.

When the request for classification, or the application for review or classification, of any cotton or the request for Micronaire determination for any cotton shall be withdrawn after the service requested has been started pursuant to such request or application, the person making such request or application shall pay the fee prescribed by § 27.80 as to any service completed prior to such withdrawal.
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

PAULA DEAN BENSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:19cv4926-RV-HTC 

JANICE RICKETSON and 

JULIE GAITHER, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated March 27, 2020. (Doc. 7). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections (Doc. 

8). 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

Case 3:19-cv-04926-RV-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv4926-RV-HTC 

 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

 3. The clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2020. 

 

 /s/ Roger Vinson / 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:19-cv-04926-RV-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2