alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State ex rel. Colvin, Appellant, *v.*Nancy Drilling Company; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Colvin v. Nancy Drilling Co.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 328.]

(No. 96-2609

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William J. McDonald,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

96-1951.

#### State ex rel. Lantz v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 95APD07-840. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 99, 698 N.E.2d 430. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
98- 856.

#### Headley v. Ohio Govt. Risk Mgt. Plan.

Muskingum App. No. CT970017. On motion to consolidate with case No. 98-1460. Motion granted.

Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
98-1757.

#### Sharwell v. Wimberly.

Cuyahoga App. No. 73299. On motion for stay. Motion denied.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ISAAC BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:03cv326-WS/WCS

JAMES V. CROSBY, 

DR. PAREKH,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

This cause has been referred to the undersigned upon referral from the clerk.

Pending is Plaintiff’s amended civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

doc. 14. On January 12, 2005, the court ordered service. Doc. 20. On April 7, 2005,

Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file an Answer, doc. 22, which was

granted in this court’s order entered April 11, 2005, doc. 23, and Defendant’s were

given until May 9, 2005, to file an Answer. On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff’s copy of that

order was returned undelivered to the clerk and the envelope indicates that Plaintiff was

released from custody. A check with the Department of Corrections reveals that the

Plaintiff was released on January 21, 2005. A further check with his supervising

probation office revealed that he is in a Rehabilitation Center undergoing treatment.

Case 4:03-cv-00326-WS-WCS Document 25 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:03cv326-WS/WCS

The plaintiff bears the burden of going forward with his case. Likewise, every

party to a civil action of this nature bears the responsibility of keeping the court apprised

of his current whereabouts. It appears that plaintiff has been released from

incarceration and it may be that he no longer wishes to pursue this civil rights action and

has simply abandoned it. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, it appears that the

court should afford the plaintiff one final opportunity to demonstrate his intent to

prosecute this action.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk of the court is hereby directed to forward a copy of this order to the

Plaintiff, in care of his supervising probation officer, at the following address:

Mr. Isaac Brooks

c/o Mr. Ben Gilliam

3520 W. Broward Blvd.

Suite 210

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312

2. The Plaintiff shall have until May 16, 2005, in which to advise the court

whether or not he wishes to pursue this lawsuit.

3. Defendant’s time for filing an Answer to the complaint is STAYED pending

Plaintiff’s response. Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to this order will result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed for his failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED on May 2, 2005. 

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-00326-WS-WCS Document 25 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 6
3NI Science. 

Applied to Life."' 

3M COVID-19 Anti-Fraud, Anti-Price Gouging, and Anti-Counterfeiting Reporting 

Have a concern to report related to Fraud, Price Gouging or Counterfeit product? Fill out form below 

At 3M, we are committed to doing all we can to help combat the fraudulent, price gouging, and counterfeit activity that is unfortunately occurring in connection with COVID-19. 3M will not 

tolerate any such activity by 3M authorized channel partners and we will aggressively pursue third-parties that seek to take advantage of this crisis. We are working with law enforcement 

authorities around the world- including, in the U.S., the U.S. Attorney General, State Attorneys General, and local authorities. 

COVID-19 Fraud 

Please complete as much of the information requested below as possible. Fields marked with an asterisk are required. Once you submit this report, you will receive an email notification 

that 3M has received the report. We request that you reply to that email and attach any copies of invoices, contracts, pictures of product and any other relevant documentation that can 

help us to investigate the situation. 

Requestor Information 

First Name* 

Last Name* 

Company Name 

Email/Business Email Address* 

Phone/Business Phone Number* 

Government Agency Name (if applicable) 

Country/Region* 

United States 

Account Type* 

Select One 

Alleged Solicitor/Seller Information 

Please provide as much information as possible. 

Seller First Name 
Seller Last Name 

Seller Company 

Seller Email 

Seller Phone 

Seller's Website 

Fraud Product Details 

Product 1* 

Select One 

Product 1 Price 

Product 1 3M SKU 

Product 1 Quantity 

Product 2 

Select One 

Product 2 Price 

Product 2 3M SKU 

Product 2 Quantity 

Product 3 

Select One 

Product 3 Price 

Product 3 3M SKU 

Product 3 Quantity 

How did the interaction take place?* 

Select One 

Interaction URL 
Product Fraud Details* 

Provide as much detail about the interaction as possible including how you first contacted the seller and what information did the seller provide you regarding the product 

3M respects your right to privacy. 3M will collect, use, and disclose the personal information you provide in accordance with our Privacy Policy. In order to investigate and prosecute 

fraud, price gouging and fraudulent activity, 3M may voluntarily share information with law enforcement agencies around the world. If 3M elects to share personal information with law 

enforcement agencies, 3M will have no control over that personal information. 

Please be aware that the information you supply about yourself, or any aspect of 3M's operations may result in actions or decisions that may affect others. We ask you to provide only 

information that, to the best of your knowledge, is correct. You will not be sanctioned for submitting information in good faith, even if it turns out to be inaccurate. However, if you 

knowingly provide false or misleading information, it may result in disciplinary or judicial action. 

Submit 

The brands listed above are trademarks of 3M.
97- 1446.

#### State ex rel. McFadden v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 96APD02-225. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio be, and hereby is, granted.

The appeal of Stoneridge, Inc. remains pending.
#### Violet Erby, appellee, v. Thomas M. Whitson, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,473.

O’Connor, P. J., dissenting.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 19, 1934.

Earl J. Walker, for appellant. Gurdon Williams, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. MITCHELL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 16, 1906.)

Action by John J. Smith against Charles F. Mitchell, as attorney, etc.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendants to plead over upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal.
§ 3430.903 Eligibility. Applications may be submitted by either: ( a ) Public or private nonprofit community colleges, or
( b ) Advanced technological centers, *either of which must:* ( 1 ) Be located in a *rural area* (*see* definition in § 3430.902);
( 2 ) Have been in existence as of June 18, 2008;
( 3 ) Participate in agricultural or bioenergy research and applied research;
( 4 ) Have a proven record of development and implementation of programs to meet the needs of students, educators, and business and industry to supply the agriculture-based, renewable energy or pulp and paper manufacturing fields with certified technicians, as determined by the Secretary; and
( 5 ) Have the ability to leverage existing partnerships and occupational outreach and training programs for secondary schools, 4-year institutions, and relevant nonprofit organizations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6950

PHI QUANG NGUYEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BONNIE BOYETTE, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-1094-1)

Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: November 5, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phi Quang Nguyen, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Phi Quang Nguyen seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Nguyen has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
§ 3431.5 Solicitation of veterinarian shortage situations. ( a ) *General.* The Secretary will follow the procedures described in this part to solicit veterinarian shortage situations as the term is defined in § 3431.3.
( b ) *Solicitation.* The Secretary will publish a solicitation for nomination of veterinarian shortage situations in the Federal Register, on the Agency's Web site, or other appropriate format or forum.
( c ) *Frequency.* Contingent on the availability of funds, the Secretary will normally publish a solicitation on an annual basis. However, the Secretary reserves the right to solicit veterinarian shortage situations every two or three years, as appropriate.
( d ) *Content.* The solicitation will describe the nomination process, the review criteria and process, and include the form used to submit a nomination. The solicitation may specify the maximum number of nominations that may be submitted by each State animal health official.
( e ) *Nominations.* Nominations shall identify the veterinarian shortage situation and address the criteria in the nomination form which may include the objectives of the position, the activities of the position, and the risk posed if the position is not secured.
( f ) *Nominating Official.* The State animal health official in each State is the person responsible for submitting and certifying veterinarian shortage situations within the State to NIFA officials. It is strongly recommended that the State animal health official of each State involve the leading health animal experts in the State in the nomination process.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued020298NF
A A Shipping Incorporated, 11526 Harwin Drive,
                             Houston, TX 77072
September 27, 2010.020660F
GAL International Inc., 5070 Parkside
                             Avenue, Suite 3104, Philadelphia, PA 19131
October 17, 2010.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 2010-29056 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
****NIST Special Publication 500-240:****
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2312 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2312

  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to change the 
numerical identifier used to identify Medicare beneficiaries under the 
                           Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2006

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to change the 
numerical identifier used to identify Medicare beneficiaries under the 
                           Medicare program.

    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 ``Social Security Number Protection 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO CHANGE 
              THE NUMERICAL IDENTIFIER USED TO IDENTIFY MEDICARE 
              BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
establish and implement procedures to change the numerical identifier 
used to identify individuals entitled to benefits under part A of title 
XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title 
so that such an individual's social security account number is not 
displayed on the identification card issued to the individual under the 
Medicare program under such title or on any explanation of Medicare 
benefits mailed to the individual.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 0 5 4 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. M A R I O R A M O N L O P E Z , a l s o k n o w n a s M a r i o R a m o s L o p e z , a l s o k n o w n a s M a r i o L o p e z , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 4 3 7

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t M a r i o R a m o n L o p e z h a s m o v e d f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s

v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. L o p e z h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s

U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 26 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20054 Document: 00511274682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 0 5 4

G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-20054 Document: 00511274682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
§ 319.69-1 Definitions. ( a ) *Packing materials.* The expression “packing material”, as used in § 319.69, includes any of the plants or plant products enumerated, when these are associated with or accompany any commodity or shipment to serve for filling, wrapping, ties, lining, mats, moisture retention, protection, or for any other purpose; and the word “packing”, as used in the expression “packing materials”, shall include the presence of such materials within, in contact with, or accompanying such commodity or shipment.[1]
( b ) *Inspector.* An inspector of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[75 FR 17292, Apr. 6, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 29958, June 25, 2019] Footnotes -
319.69-1
[1] Since it is the packing materials themselves which constitute the danger and not the manner of use, it is intended that the definition shall include their presence within or accompanying a shipment regardless of their function or relation to a shipment or the character of the shipment.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-84,231-11 & WR-84,231-12

EX PARTE ANTHONY DAVID TEAGUE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W366-82919-2013-HC10 & W366-82919-2013-HC11 

IN THE 219 DISTRICT COURT FROM COLLIN COUNTY TH

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of stalking and sentenced to twentyyears’ imprisonment. The Sixth

Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Teague v. State, No. 06-14-00053-CR (Tex.

App.—Texarkana May 13, 2015). Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in

the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. SeeTEX.CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07.

We have previously dismissed six subsequent applications in this cause. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 4. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise grounds

that were previously rejected on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications. 
2

We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a frivolous lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones, 97

S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 498.0045(a-1). Should Applicant file

future habeas applications in this cause, we will not consider the merits of his applications unless

he shows that the factual or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a previously filed

application. These applications are dismissed. 

Copies of this ordershall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Filed: March 11, 2020

Do not publish
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.




DIRECTOR COMPENSATION UPDATE



        Upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of
Phoenix Technologies Ltd. (the “Company”), the Board approved in January 2008 a revision to the
annual retainer fee for the Chairman of the Board. Only members of the Board who are not employees
of the Company (“Outside Directors”) are entitled to receive compensation under the Company’s
Director Compensation Plan. All retainers are payable quarterly in arrears.



        All Outside Directors are entitled to receive an annual retainer of $30,000. The Chairman of the
Board also receives an annual retainer of $20,000. The Board approved an increase to the Chairman
of the Board retainer from $20,000 to $40,000.



        There have been no other changes to the Director Compensation Plan as set forth in the Company’s
definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2008.
#### Barbara Lee, an Infant, by Gim T. Lee, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Henry J. Gucker, Respondent.

Order, entered on June 23, 1966, in accordance with the direction contained in the trial court’s opinion-decision of April 20, 1959 (reported at 16 Misc 2d 346, 349), that “ these actions [infant’s negligence action and father’s cause of action for resulting medical expenses] be compromised,” unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and order vacated, without costs or disbursements to any party. The record is insufficient to permit an informed conclusion concerning the wisdom of the decision below. This is especially so in view of the father-guardian ad litem’s adamant refusal to accept the settlement offered, and his insistence upon the right to go to trial. There is no doubt that the actions of the court below were dictated by a deep concern for the welfare of the infant plaintiff and it is to be commended for its sincere efforts on the infant’s behalf. In light of the foregoing the appeal from order entered on December 1, 1965, denying reconsideration of the April 20, 1959 decision, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and Bastow, JJ.