alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-1343: PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OpEswGnbNo\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-19-1343-promos-technologies-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-opinion-19-1343-opinion-4-6-2020_1563906\/\">19-1343: PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-19-1343-promos-technologies-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-opinion-19-1343-opinion-4-6-2020_1563906\/embed\/#?secret=OpEswGnbNo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-1343: PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"OpEswGnbNo\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-1343 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135781 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RACHEL SHAFFER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 135781 COA: 275299 Macomb CC: 04-002993-NH ST. JOSEPH’S MERCY HOSPITALS OF MACOMB and ST. JOSEPH’S MERCY OF MACOMB, a/k/a MERCY MOUNT CLEMENS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant,

and

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, a/k/a TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, PAUL MOCZARSKI, D.O., and MACOMB EMERGENCY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C., Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of Stone v Williamson (Docket No. 133986) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER th at the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

d0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
                     --------------------------------------

I, Frank P. Reilly, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007 of Fittipaldi Logistics, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectives of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
<PAGE>
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

                                   /s/ Frank P. Reilly
                                   -------------------------
                                   Frank P. Reilly
                                   Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2007
No. 10-11233.

#### Holmes *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8851.

#### Staunton *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
190P16

#### Joseph Earl Clark, II v. N.C. Department of Public Safety

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP16-282)

Denied 05/27/2016
131P04-3

#### State v. Shan Edward Carter

Def s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP14-463)

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
No. 11-9537.

#### Young *v.*Thompson et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3566

_____________________________

MICHAEL T. FREDRICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

John C. Cooper, Judge.

August 8, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael T. Fredrick, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon Traxler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



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

In connection with the periodic report on Form 10-QSB of MDI Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I, Todd A. Spence, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
based on my knowledge:

          1    Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section
               13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C.
               78m or 78 o(d); and

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


/S/ Thomas K. Andrew

Thomas K. Andrew
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT MADRAY.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 660)

(382 SE2d 597)

Per curiam.

The State Bar filed a formal complaint in this court, accusing Robert Madray of violating Standards 4, 23, 44, 45 and 68 of Bar Rule 4-102, and we appointed a special master to conduct further proceedings.1

The respondent failed to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint, in response to which the State Bar moved for a default order. The respondent did not respond to this motion. The special master then entered an order granting the motion for default, and the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board approved his report *385and recommended disbarment. The respondent has not filed any written exceptions to the Review Panel’s Report.

Decided July 27, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Viola S. Drew, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

We agree with the recommendation of the Review Panel, and hereby order Robert Madray disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia.

*All the Justices concur, except Hunt, J., not participating.*

1

 We had previously suspended the respondent in separate disciplinary proceedings. *In the Matter of Robert Madray,*258 Ga. 409 (369 SE2d 901) (1988).
#### Ranjit KUMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72370.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2004.

Decided Feb. 25, 2004.

Samuel Maina, San Francisco, CA, Emmanuel Enyinwa, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel San Francisco, CA, Alison R. Drucker, Esq., James R. Grimes, Esq., Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Ranjit Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and a denial of asylum and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244-45 (9th Cir.2000). As the parties are familiar with *238the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Ku-mar’s testimony was inconsistent and contained implausibilities. For example, Ku-mar claimed that he was an active member of the Bharitya Ganda Janta Party (“BJP”) until 1996, but from 1994 to 1996, he lived in Ludhiana, two hours from Phagwara where he purportedly was active. Moreover, he could not describe the BJP’s main goals, other than keeping India united. Kumar claimed that he was persecuted by the police for having information regarding Sikh terrorists, yet he is Hindu and did not credibly explain why he would be so suspected. Kumar also claimed that he was persecuted by Sikh terrorists for providing information to the police regarding terrorist activities in Phagwara, yet he was living and running a business in Ludhiana at the time. Because these factual discrepancies went to the heart of his asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

It follows that Kumar did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Wang v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 1015, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

p0129 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139868

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139868 COA: 293082 Genesee CC: 08-022490-FH

DAVID STANLEY STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 30, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 27.1105 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

[79 FR 32413, June 4, 2014]
No. 11-21.

#### Bowden et al. *v.*Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4319 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4319

     To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with 
            appropriate endorsement for the vessel REEL TOY.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1994

   Mr. Goss introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with 
            appropriate endorsement for the vessel REEL TOY.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 
289), and sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States 
Code, as applicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for the vessel REEL TOY, United States official 
number 698383.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

             Computation of Pro Forma Net Income Per Common Share

 



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               For the year ended September 30,
                                             ------------------------------------
                                                1994         1995         1996
                                             ----------   ----------  -----------
<S>                                         <C>          <C>          <C>                                          
Weighted average common stock outstanding 
during the period (1)                         2,519,537    2,588,689    4,159,182
Conversion of Convertible Note into shares 
   of preferred stock stock and the 
   subsequent conversion of such shares 
   into shares of Common Stock                2,055,000    2,055,000    2,055,000
Conversion of all outstanding shares of 
   preferred stock into share of 
   Common Stock                               1,541,250    1,541,250    1,541,250
Exercise of warrants                            534,505      534,505      534,505 
Effect of exercise of warrants computed 
   in accordance with the treasury 
   stock method                                 (99,441)     (99,441)     (44,830)
                                             ----------   ----------  -----------
Total weighted average common stock 
   outstanding during the period              6,550,851    6,620,003    8,245,107
                                             ==========   ==========  ===========

Income before taxes                          $  354,849   $1,689,963  $12,291,115

Plus: reduction in interest expense 
   from the conversion of the Convertible 
   Note                                       1,660,012    1,859,305      926,248
                                             ----------   ----------  -----------

Pro forma income before taxes                 2,014,861    3,549,268   13,217,363
 
Pro forma income tax expense                     62,257      301,688    4,599,642
                                             ----------   ----------  -----------

Pro forma net income                         $1,952,604   $3,247,580  $ 8,617,721
                                             ==========   ==========  ===========

Pro forma net income per common share             $0.30        $0.49        $1.05
                                             ==========   ==========  ===========
 
 
 
</TABLE>


(1) Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accouting Bulletin
No. 83, common stock and common stock equivalents issued at prices below the
assumed intial public offering price per share during the twelve month period
immediately preceding the intial filing date of the Company's Registration
Statement for its public offering have been included as outstanding for all
periods presented prior to the initial public offering.
No. 11-730.

#### Roeder et al. *v.*Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4577

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green,

Kentucky, as the ‘‘William H. Natcher Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green, Ken6 tucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William H.

7 Natcher Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.
2

HR 4577 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

6 H. Natcher Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.403 Retransmission of distress message. Any station which becomes aware that a mobile station is in distress may transmit the distress message in the following cases: ( a ) When the station in distress is not itself in a position to transmit the message.
( b ) In the case of mobile stations, when the master or the person in charge of the ship, aircraft, or other vehicles carrying the station which intervenes believes that further help is necessary.
( c ) In the case of other stations, when directed to do so by the station in control of distress traffic or when it has reason to believe that a distress call which it has intercepted has not been received by any station in a position to render aid.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1551

___________________________

Doug Weischman

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: August 12, 2016

Filed: August 17, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Douglas Weischman appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of 1

supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we find that substantial

evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s)

decision that Mr. Weischman was not disabled. See Andrews v. Colvin, 791 F.3d

923, 928 (8th Cir. 2015). Specifically, we defer to the ALJ’s credibility findings, see

McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 998 (8thCir. 2013) (credibility findings are entitled

to deference if supported by good reasons and substantial evidence); and we find that

the ALJ’s determination of Mr. Weischman’s residual functional capacity (RFC),

which was more limited than the determinations of the reviewing and consulting

physicians, is consistent with the medical evidence and, for the most part, with Mr.

Weischman’s own description of his ability to sit, stand, walk and carry, see Myers

v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC must be determined based on all

relevant evidence, including medical records, observations oftreating physicians and

others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations; RFC must be supported by

some medical evidence). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J.

Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-