alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 60-30.17 Appearance of witnesses. ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance at the hearing of any person having personal or expert knowledge of the matters in issue shall serve on the prospective witness a notice, which may be accomplished by an administrative subpoena, setting forth the time, date, and place at which he is to appear for the purpose of giving testimony. The notice shall also set forth the categories of documents the witness is to bring with him to the hearing, if any. A copy of the notice shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge and additional copies shall be served upon the opposing parties.
( b ) It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Due regard shall be given to the convenience of witnesses in scheduling their testimony so that they will be detained no longer than reasonably necessary.
( c ) The party or prospective witness may file an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness.
[43 FR 49259, Oct. 20, 1978; 43 FR 51401, Nov. 3, 1978]
#### The American Central Insurance Company v. Andrew J. Neff.

New Tbiae; Case, *Followed.*When a motion is made for a new trial, and continued until the judge who tried the case has gone out of office, and his successor hears such motion, it is his duty to grant a new trial. *(Bass v. Swingley,*42 Kas. 729, followed.)

*Fhror from, Shawnee District Court.*

The opinion states the case.

*Fossington, Smith & Dallas,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. D. McFarland,*for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Green, C.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Shawnee county in October, 1882, by the defendant in érror, to recover upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant below to J. R. Misserly, upon a store building in Wellington. The claim was made by the plaintiff below that Misserly and wife sold the property to him, and that he was the owner of the building, when the loss occurred. A trial was had upon the issues joined between the parties, on the 26th of June, 1884, before the Hon. John Martin, then district judge of Shawnee county. After all the testimony had been offered by the parties, the court instructed the jury that under the law and the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict, which was accordingly rendered. Sub*458sequently, and within the statutory time, the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial; and about four years thereafter, and after the judge’s term had expired, the motion for a new trial was heard by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, and by him sustained; to which ruling of the court plaintiff in error excepted, and brings the record here for review.

There is but one question we can pass upon in this case, and that is, the ruling of, the court below in sustaining the motion for a new trial. While there is a case-made filed in this court, and signed by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, showing what took place before the motion for a new trial was passed upon, we can only consider the ruling of the court upon this one question, namely, the motion for a new trial. And in the light of the decision made by this court in the case of *Bass v. Swingley,*42 Kas. 729, (22 Pac. Rep. 714,) the ruling of the court was correct.

We therefore recommend that the action of the court in granting a new trial be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.
#### § 50-204.67 Oxygen.

The in-plant transfer, handling, storage, and utilization of oxygen as a liquid or a compressed gas shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-4-1962.
271P14-2

#### State v. Rodney Moucell Jones

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

1. Dismissed 11/25/2015

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

2. Denied 11/25/2015

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

3. Allowed 11/25/2015
Cite as 2023 Ark. 39



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS JUDGES AND LAWYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COMMITTEE Opinion Delivered : March 9, 2023

PER CURIAM Catherine Corless is appointed to the Arkansas Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program Committee as a lawyer member, for a six
- year term expiring March 9 , 2029. She is replacing William B. Putman , whose term has concluded. Brandi Collins is appointed to the Arkansas Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program Committee as a lawyer member, for a six
- year term expiring March 9 , 2029. She is replacing

t he Honorable Melinda French , whose term has concluded. Dean Cynthia Nance is appo inted to the Arkansas Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program Committee as a lawyer member, for a six
- year term expiring March 9 , 2029. She is replacing Jonathan Warren , whose term has concluded.
The court extends its sincere appreciation to Ms. Corless , Ms. Collins, and Dean
Nance for accepting appointment to this important committee. The court also expresses its gratitude to Mr. Putman, Judge French, and Mr. Warren for their dedicated service to the

committee.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39209-39210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16057]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Agency Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
June 26, 2000.
    An open meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 10 a.m. 
in Room 1C30.
    Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 
27, 2000 will be:
    The Commission will consider whether to propose rule amendments to 
its auditor independence requirements. The proposals are intended to 
modernize the Commission's regulations regarding:
    (1) Investments by auditors or their family members in audit 
clients;
    (2) Employment relationships between auditors or their family 
members and audit clients; and
    (3) The scope of services provided by audit firms to their audit 
clients.
    In addition, the rules would require companies to disclose in their 
annual proxy statements certain information about non-audit services 
provided by their auditors during the last fiscal year.
    For further information, please contact John Morrissey or W. Scott 
Bayless at (202) 942-4400.
    A closed meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 at 11 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(A) and

[[Page 39210]]

(10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at the closed 
meeting.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
June 28, 2000 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16057 Filed 6-21-00; 12:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 10-11222.

#### Baze *v.*Parker.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 11, 2000, Penick Corporation, 158 Mount Olivet Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07114, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleCodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorpnone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOpium extracts (9610)
IIOpium powdered (9639)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution as bulk pharmaceutical products to its customers. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration. Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than August 25, 2000. Dated: June 14, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-15985 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### § 301-50.2 How must I arrange my travel?

You must arrange your travel as designated by your agency and in accordance with this part.
No. 11-8888.

#### Darrian *v.*New Jersey.

Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.1 

**AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK TRUST AGREEMENT**

**UNDER THE 1993 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) is hereby entered into effective as of April 21, 2006, by and between Wyeth (the“Company”) and Jack M. O’Connor (the “Trustee”). 

**W I T N E S S E T H**

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Trustee entered into on April 20, 1994, a Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (the “TrustAgreement”), to implement various Restricted Stock Performance Award Agreements entered into from time to time by and between the Company and key employees and directors initially under the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1994 RestrictedStock Plan for Non-Employee Directors; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Trust Agreement has been amended from time to time; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Trustee desire to further amend the Trust Agreement as provided herein. 

**NOW THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows, effective as of January 1, 2006: 

1. The Trust Agreementshall be referred to as “The Restricted Stock Trust Agreement Under the Wyeth Stock Incentive Plans”. 

2. Allreferences in the Trust Agreement to “the Plan” shall be deemed to include each of the following plans of the Company (i) the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, (ii) the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, (iii) 1999 Stock Incentive Plan,(iv) the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, (v) the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, (vi) the 1994 Restricted Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors and (vii) the 2006 Non-Employee Directors Stock Incentive Plan. 

3. The first two sentences of Section 6.3 of the Trust Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows: 

Each Participant shall have the right and shall be afforded the opportunity to instruct the Trustee how to vote the shares of Company Stock held insuch Participant’s Account. The Trustee shall only vote shares of Company Stock for which he receives instructions from a Participant. Accordingly, the Trustee shall have no right to, and shall not, vote shares of Company Stock for which hereceives no instruction from a Participant. 

4. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other provisions of the TrustAgreement shall remain unchanged and in full force effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed April 21, 2006.

 
By: /s/ Jack M. O’Connor Jack M. O’ConnorBy: /s/ Mary Katherine Wold 
Mary Katherine Wold

Wyeth

 

Attested:

/s/ Eileen M. Lach

Eileen M. Lach

Corporate Secretary
# Comments on: 20-1184: MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-15123

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cv-00932-CLS-HGD

ETHAN EUGENE DORSEY, JR.

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES BAILEY,

in his individual capacity

and official capacity,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(March 7, 2013)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-15123 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Ethan Dorsey, Jr., an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the summary 

judgment against his complaint that Charles Bailey, a shift commander at the St. 

Clair Correctional Facility, acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk 

of serious physical harm to Dorsey in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Dorsey sued Bailey to recover for injuries that Dorsey suffered 

during a fight with his cellmate, Jerome Terry, whom Dorsey had requested that 

Bailey relocate to another prison cell. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of 

Bailey. Dorsey failed to establish that Bailey was subjectively aware that Dorsey 

faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from Terry. See Carter v. 

Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). Bailey’s affidavit established

that, despite an earlier “disagreement” between the prisoners, he did not believe 

Terry posed any risk of harm to Dorsey because the inmate-control system officer 

who assigned Terry to Dorsey’s cell had determined that the two men were not 

“validated enem[ies].” And the inmates had lived peaceably since their 

disagreement. Dorsey averred that he and Terry had resided in the same cell block 

“for months without incident” and they visited Bailey together to report the 

“potential danger” in housing them together. Although Dorsey reported that he did 

not “feel comfortable” living with Terry, Dorsey did not state that he had been 

threatened by or feared Terry. Dorsey also agreed to “try to chill” after Bailey said 

Case: 11-15123 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

that he would address the housing situation in a couple of days. Affidavits 

prepared by other inmates established that Bailey knew Terry had been a 

“troublemaker,” had “past conflicts” with Dorsey, and had been removed from the 

cell block the previous week for sexual misconduct, but failed to prove that Bailey 

could have known that Terry would hurt Dorsey. Bailey “arguably should have . . . 

[separated Dorsey and Terry,] but [a] ‘merely negligent failure to protect an inmate 

from attack does not justify liability under section 1983. . . .’” Id. at 1350 (quoting 

Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990)).

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Bailey.

Case: 11-15123 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 3 of 3
#### § 302-10.100 What distance will my agency allow for points of origin and destination within CONUS and Alaska?

Your agency will allow for the distance shown in standard highway mileage guides or agency designated official table of distances or actual miles driven as determined from your odometer readings, between the authorized origin and destination.
§ 301-70.1 How must we administer the authorization and payment of travel expenses? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77027 , Sept. 20, 2024.
When administering the authorization and payment of travel expenses, you— ( a ) Must limit the authorization and payment of travel expenses to travel that is necessary to accomplish your mission in the most economical and effective manner, under rules stated throughout this chapter;
( b ) Should give consideration to budget constraints, adherence to travel policies, and reasonableness of expenses;
( c ) Should always consider alternatives, including teleconferencing, prior to authorizing travel; and
( d ) Must require employees to use the ETS to process travel authorizations and claims for travel expenses once you migrate to the ETS, but no later than September 30, 2006, unless an exception has been granted under § 301-73.102 or § 301-73.104 of this chapter.
[FTR Amdt. 2003-07, 68 FR 71030, Dec. 22, 2003, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61539, Oct. 31, 2007]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 27, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 27, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0105. STEPHEN FLOYD ALEXANDER v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14CR487
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16283]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-910-0777-26-241A]


State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory Council meeting notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Arizona Resource 
Advisory Council (RAC). The meeting will be held on August 4, 2000, in 
Phoenix, Arizona. The RAC meeting will begin at 9 a.m and will conclude 
at approximately 4 p.m. The agenda items to be covered include the 
review of the March 31 and May 11, 2000, meeting minutes; BLM State 
Director's Update on legislation, regulations and statewide planning 
efforts; National Off-Highway Vehicle Use Strategy Presentation/RAC 
Discussion; Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Presentation; Arizona 
Trails System; Update Proposed Field Office Rangeland Resource Teams; 
Reports from BLM Field Office Managers; Reports by the Standards and 
Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations, Wild Horse and Burro 
Working Groups; Reports from RAC members; and Discussion of future 
meetings. A public comment period will be provided at 11 a.m. on August 
4, 2000, for any interested publics who wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.

Denise P. Meridith,
Arizona State Director.
[FR Doc. 00-16283 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

 

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.                                                                                       theCompany’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005(“10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                                                                       theinformation contained in the Company’s 10-Q being filed fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: February 9, 2006 | /s/Anthony R. Fabiano                                     |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Anthony R. Fabiano  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. andwill be retained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### § 302-8.105 May I transport a portion of my HHG to the official station and store the remainder at Government expense?

Yes, you may transport a portion of your HHG to the official station and store the remainder at Government expense, if authorized by your agency. The combined weight, however, of the HHG stored and transported must not exceed the maximum 18,000 pounds net weight.
§ 302-1.100 What is a comprehensive, automated relocation management system? A comprehensive, automated relocation management system is a system that integrates into a single, electronic environment, information related to all aspects of employee relocation, including these and similar items: ( a ) Authorizations;
( b ) Reimbursements to employees and service providers;
( c ) Househunting trips;
( d ) Travel to the new permanent duty station;
( e ) Temporary quarters;
( f ) Transportation and storage of property;
( g ) Residence transactions;
( h ) Use of relocation services companies;
( i ) Property management services;
( j ) Miscellaneous expenses;
( k ) Relocation income taxes and allowances;
( l ) Appropriate electronic connections to agency payment and finance processes for all of the above; and
( m ) Standard and unique reports for use by agency relocation managers, agency executives, GSA, and others as needed.