alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3227

___________

David Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Correctional Medical Services; Paul * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Torrez, CMS Regional Administrator; *

Arthur Culpepper, CMS Ombudsman; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Patricia Kelly, Dr.; Connie Hubbard, *

A.N.P., Varner Super Max, ADC; Kay *

Brodnax, Infirmary Manager; Laura *

McCarty, CMS Grievance Responder, *

Varner Unit, ADC; Larry Norris, *

Director, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Max Mobley, ADC Deputy *

Director, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2006

Filed: February 15, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas inmate David Williams challenges the

district court’s1

 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Following

careful review of the record, including consideration of the factors discussed in

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

agree with the district court that Williams did not meet his burden of establishing a

preliminary injunction should issue with regard to his claims concerning Hepatitis C

testing and treatment. See Manion v. Nagin, 255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A

district court has broad discretion when ruling on requests for preliminary injunctions,

and [court of appeals] will reverse only for clearly erroneous factual determinations,

an error of law, or abuse of discretion.”); Dataphase Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d at 113 (to

determine whether injunctive relief is warranted, court must balance threat of

irreparable harm to movant, harm to nonmoving party should injunction issue,

likelihood of success on merits, and public interest). Williams has no standing here

to seek injunctive relief on behalf of other inmates. See Meis v. Gunter, 906 F.2d 364,

366-68 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, Williams did not assert or show that he was

personally under a threat of irreparable harm necessitating the injunctive relief he

sought, nor did he establish a likelihood of success on the merits. See generally

Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing Hepatitis C). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________
# C_2015398EN.01007802.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/78

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — Arsène v Commission

(Case F-89/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Disregarding of periods of duty in the service of an international organisation - Application by analogy of the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Usual residence outside the State of employment before performing duties in the service of an international organisation - Article 81 of the Staff Regulations - Action manifestly unfounded))

(2015/C 398/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria Lucia Arsène (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant the expatriation allowance and for an order that it pay that allowance, together with interest, from the date of the applicant’s entry into service.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Ms Arsène shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Arsène shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 62.

1

---
§ 640.74 Modification of Source Plasma. ( a ) Upon approval by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, of a supplement to the biologics license application for Source Plasma, a manufacturer may prepare Source Plasma as a liquid product for a licensed blood derivative manufacturer who has indicated a need for a liquid product.
( b ) Source Plasma Liquid shall meet all standards of the frozen Source Plasma except: ( 1 ) Source Plasma Liquid shall be stored in nonleachable containers so that the containers and their components will not interact with the plasma contents under conditions of storage and use so as to alter the safety, quality, purity, or potency of the plasma and shall provide adequate protection against external factors that may cause deterioration or contamination.
( 2 ) Source Plasma Liquid shall be shipped, stored and labeled for storage at a temperature of 10 °C or colder. An exception to the shipping or storage temperature shall be approved by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, based upon his receipt of substantial evidence to support another temperature. Such evidence may be submitted by either the licensed manufacturer of the Source Plasma Liquid or the manufacturer of the final blood derivative product who has requested the Source Plasma Liquid.
( 3 ) The label for the Source Plasma Liquid shall be easily distinguished from that of the frozen product. Color coding shall not be used for this purpose.
( 4 ) The label affixed to each container of Source Plasma Liquid shall contain, in addition to the information required by § 606.121 of this chapter, but excluding § 606.121(e)(5)(ii) of this chapter, the name of the manufacturer of the final blood derivative product for whom it was prepared.
( 5 ) Source Plasma Liquid shall be inspected immediately prior to issuance. If the color or physical appearance is abnormal, or there is any indication or suspicion of microbial contamination, the unit of Source Plasma Liquid shall not be issued.
[38 FR 32089, Nov. 20, 1973. Redesignated and amended at 41 FR 10770, Mar. 12, 1976; 49 FR 23834, June 8, 1984; 50 FR 4140, Jan. 29, 1985; 55 FR 11013, Mar. 26, 1990; 59 FR 49351, Sept. 28, 1994; 63 FR 16685, Apr. 6, 1998; 64 FR 56454, Oct. 20, 1999; 77 FR 18, Jan. 3, 2012]
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Solely in connection with the filing of the AnnualReport of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan,Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:       April 7, 2010

 
|   | /s/ Thomas J. Shaw        |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | THOMAS J. SHAW            |
|   | PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN,  AND |
|   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER   |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ Douglas W. Cowan      |   |
|   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN          |
|   | VICE PRESIDENT AND        |
|   | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER   |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00790-CV

Wanda F. Look, as Trustee of the Dwight Look Revocable Trust and as Independent

Executor of the Estate of Dwight Look, Deceased,

Appellant

v.

Marion Look-Jameson, Guardian of the Estate of R. L. J., a Minor and Linda Look,

Appellees

FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. 83,252, HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Wanda F. Look, as trustee of the Dwight Look Revocable Trust and as

independent executor of the Estate of Dwight Look, deceased, and appellees Marion Look-Jameson,

Guardian of the Estate of R. L. J., a minor, and Linda Look have filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss this

appeal. They represent that all parties to the appeal have settled their disputes.

We grant the Joint Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this appeal.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: January 9, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,385,364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,633,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                    62,778
<INVENTORY>                                  7,980,641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,348,746
<PP&E>                                      10,221,898
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,777,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,561,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,240,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,186
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,985,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,561,865
<SALES>                                      7,684,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,002,919
<CGS>                                        5,105,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,576,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,573,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,573,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,573,890)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.70)
        

</TABLE>
619 P.2d 1041

#### In the Matter of Randy WOLFE, Petitioner, v. MARICOPA COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, PSYCHIATRIC ANNEX, Respondent.

No. H-807.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Nov. 12, 1980.

*265Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Edward C. Voss, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for petitioner Wolfe.

Charles F. Hyder, Maricopa County Atty. by Charles C. Gatewood, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondent.

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

The petitioner, Randy Wolfe, sought by a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to be released from the psychiatric unit of the Maricopa County Hospital. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, § 5 of the Constitution of Arizona and A.R.S. § 13-4123. After oral argument this court ordered petitioner released from the respondent hospital, adding that a written opinion would follow.

Petitioner was ordered committed to the Maricopa County Hospital on August 18, 1980, for court ordered treatment pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-541. The order of the superior court provided that hospitalization should not exceed 25 days.

Petitioner was hospitalized from the date of the order and remained hospitalized up to the date of the hearing in this case. During his hospitalization the petitioner refused to follow the complete medical program of the Maricopa County Hospital, and he had refused to continue taking the prescribed psychotropic medications.

The medical authorities at the Maricopa County Hospital refused to release petitioner until he followed the full 25-day program of psychotropic medications. The argument was made that the court ordered the petitioner to undergo a treatment program for not to exceed 25 days, which means 25 days of actual treatment. The hospital authorities contend that any period when the petitioner refused treatment must be excluded from the computation of days in treatment. We reject the contentions of the respondent hospital.

The statute relied upon by the respondent hospital, A.R.S. § 36-541, provides for a period of treatment of at least 25 days before the patient is hospitalized in the state hospital. Nothing in the statute or elsewhere in the chapter on Mental Health Services, A.R.S. § 36-501 et seq., suggests that a patient may be confined beyond the court ordered period. On the contrary, the tenor of the statutes on the subject indicate that court ordered treatment is limited by specific statutory periods, and the patient must be released at the expiration of the period of treatment ordered unless a new petition is filed with the court prior to the patient’s release date. *See*A.R.S. § 36-540 through 542.

The petitioner had been held in the respondent hospital far in excess of the period of court ordered treatment, and, as we read the statutes, he was entitled to be discharged from the respondent hospital. If any additional period of treatment is deemed necessary by the physicians, an application must be made to the superior court.

STRUCKMEYER, C. J., and HAYS, CAMERON and GORDON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts", "Summary of
Financial Data" and "Selected Financial Data" and to the use of our report
dated March 16, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
The Ackerley Group, Inc. and our report dated April 12, 1999, with respect to
the financial statements of WOKR(TV) included in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-49711) and related Prospectus of The Ackerley Group, Inc. for
the registration of 4,830,000 shares of its common stock.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Seattle, Washington
July 30, 1999
EXHIBIT 99.1

             BankFirst Corp Announces 500,000 Share Stock Repurchase


Knoxville, Tennessee -- (January 11, 2000) -- BankFirst Corporation (Nasdaq:
BKFR; www.bankfirst.net) announced today that its Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to acquire up to 500,000 shares of its Common Stock,
representing up to approximately 4.4% of the total common shares outstanding.

The shares will be acquired from time to time in open market transactions, in
block purchases or otherwise, and will be available for general corporate
purposes. The timing, volume and price of purchases will be at the discretion of
management and the BankFirst Corporation Board, and will also be contingent upon
overall financial and market conditions.

BankFirst Corporation is a financial services holding company headquartered in
Knoxville, Tennessee. Its affiliate banks, BankFirst and First National Bank and
Trust Company, provide a full line of financial services through offices in six
East Tennessee counties. Knoxville-based BankFirst has 25 offices and 42 ATMs in
Knox, Blount, Loudon, Sevier, and Jefferson counties. The First National Bank
and Trust company, based in Athens, has six offices and eight ATMs in McMinn
County. The Company provides trust and brokerage services through BankFirst
Trust Company, with mortgage services provided through Curtis Mortgage Company.

CONTACT:  BankFirst Corporation, Knoxville
          Sharon O. Woods   865-595-1158



                                       -3-
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

| Date:

  | November14, 2007

 

  |   |
|---------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|          | /s/ E. Joseph Grady              |   |
| Name:         | E. Joseph Grady                  |   |
| Title:        | Chief Financial Officer          |   |
|          |                             |   |
|          |                             |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
§ 20.34 Search for records. ( a ) In responding to a request for records, the Food and Drug Administration shall make reasonable efforts to search for records kept in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information systems.
( b ) The term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records that are responsive to the request.
[68 FR 25285, May 12, 2003]
#### § 20.91 Use of data or information for administrative or court enforcement action.

Nothing in this part or this chapter shall prevent the Food and Drug Administration from using any data or information, whether obtained voluntarily or involuntarily and whether or not it is available for public disclosure, as the basis for taking any administrative or court enforcement action within its jurisdiction. Data and information otherwise exempt from public disclosure are nevertheless available for public disclosure to the extent necessary to effectuate such action, e.g., the brand name, code designation, and distribution information are released when a product is recalled.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-81208, 333-71954, 333-70976, 333-60132, 333-43038, 333-40322 and 333-35876 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-70982, 333-38964 and 333-35874 on Form S-8 of GlycoGenesys, Inc. (formerly SafeScience, Inc.) of our report datedMay 29, 2002, except for Note 6, as to which the date is December 18, 2002, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to SafeScience Newco, Ltd.’s ability to continue as a going concern)relating to the financial statements of SafeScience Newco, Ltd., as of and for the period ended December 31, 2001 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of GlycoGenesys, Inc. (formerly SafeScience, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

/s/    DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 28, 2003
§ 524.1484e Neomycin and polymyxin B ophthalmic solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of the ophthalmic preparation contains 5.0 milligrams neomycin sulfate (3.5 milligrams neomycin base), and 10,000 Units of polymyxin B sulfate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Instill 1 to 2 drops per eye every 6 hours.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of bacterial infections associated with topical ophthalmological conditions such as corneal injuries, superficial keratitis, conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis, and blepharitis.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[40 FR 13873, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 61 FR 5507, Feb. 13, 1996; 79 FR 10970, Feb. 27, 2014]
# L_2019019EN.01000901.xml

| 22.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/96

of 21 January 2019

amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 May 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 May 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1).

| (2) | Two natural persons designated in Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 are deceased, and their entries should be removed from that Annex. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Two natural persons designated in Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 are deceased, and their entries should be removed from that Annex.

| (3) | Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 January 2019.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79).

1

---

ANNEX

In Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, Annex II, Part (I)(A), the following entries are removed:

| 2. | CHU Kyu-Chang (D.O.B. 25.11.1928) |
| --- | --- |

2.

CHU Kyu-Chang (D.O.B. 25.11.1928)

| 4. | KIM Yong-chun (D.O.B. 4.3.1935). |
| --- | --- |

4.

KIM Yong-chun (D.O.B. 4.3.1935).

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 9, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-569 Lower Tribunal Nos. F07-43923; F08-20401

________________ 

### Mitchel Machado, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Mitchel Machado, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.