alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 15
Case 3:09-cv-00444-M Document 1 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUPERIOR SERVICES,  INC. AS OF AND FOR THE
TWELVE  MONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         9,715
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,639)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               73,444
<PP&E>                                         462,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (150,443)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 526,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,685
<BONDS>                                        66,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       322
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   526,842
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               319,673
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  224,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,954
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                42,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                   22,060
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            20,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   20,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .61
        

</TABLE>
§ 233.52 Overpayment to aliens. A State Plan under title IV-A of the Social Security Act, shall provide that: ( a ) Any sponsor of an alien and the alien shall be jointly and severally liable for any overpayment of aid under the State plan made to the alien during the three years after the alien's entry into the United States due to the sponsor's failure to provide correct information under the provisions of § 233.51, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) When a sponsor is found to have good cause or to be without fault (as defined in the State plan) for not providing information to the agency, the sponsor will not be held liable for the overpayment and recovery will not be made from this sponsor.
( c ) An overpayment for which the alien or the sponsor and the alien are liable (as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section) shall be repaid to the State or recovered in accordance with § 233.20(a)(13). If the agency is unable to recover the overpayment through this method, funds to reimburse the agency for the overpayment shall be withheld from future payments to which the alien or the alien and the individual sponsor are entitled under: ( 1 ) Any State administered or supervised program established by the Social Security Act, or
( 2 ) Any federally administered cash benefit program established by the Social Security Act.
[47 FR 5680, Feb. 5, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 35602, Sept. 10, 1984]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1875 ANGELA AYRES, d/b/a S & A Development Group, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALPHONSO JACKSON, Secretary of HUD; JAMES KELLY, Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development; JACKIE FANTUZO, Public Information Officer; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00340-CCB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angela Ayres, Appellant Pro Se. David M. Cohen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Angela Ayers appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her civil complaint and her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ayres v. Jackson , No. 1:06-cv-00340-CCB (D. Md. July 21, 2006). We deny the parties’ motions to amend the caption. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### THOMAS N, ADKINS, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM, PLAINTIFF, v. PHILADELPHIA, TRENTON AND CHESTER COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Decided May 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the rule, *Clarence E. Case.*

*Contra, Frederick A. Pope.*

Per Curiam:.

This is an automobile accident case. The decedent, Adkins, was an employe of one Cordrey. The accident which caused his death occurred while he and his employer were returning from New York in a truck which was being driven by the *457latter. The decedent was asleep in the rear of the truck. Both parties lived near Delmar, a town on the boundary line separating the southerly part of the State of Delaware from the State of Maryland. They left that place on the 4th of August, 1927, with a load of produce to be delivered in New York. They traveled all day, reaching New York at about eleven o’clock at night. Upon reaching their destination they discharged their load, and half an hour later started on their journey home. At a point on the Lincoln Highway near New Brunswick their truck collided with a truck owned by the defendant corporation.

The principal question for determination was whether the accident was the result of the carelessness of the driver of the defendant’s truck, or that of Cordrey, or the concurrent negligence of the two. Our examination of the proofs leads us to the conclusion that the accident was solely the result of negligence on the part of Cordrey. By his own admission, made to at least two disinterested witnesses almost immediately after the occurrence of the accident, he had fallen asleep in the truck and did not wake up until almost the moment of the collision. The great preponderance of the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the driver of the defendant’s truck was traveling on the right-hand side of the road; that he saw the plaintiff’s truck approaching, wabbling from one side of the road to the other; that as it got near to him it suddenly swung straight at him; that in order to avoid a head-on collision he undertook to pass it on the left, whereupon the other truck suddenly changed his course and almost immediately smashed into that of the defendant.

The verdict of the jury being contrary to the great weight of the evidence, the rule to show cause will be made absolute for that reason.
1

08-5660

- cr U n it ed S tates v . P ea rl UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SU MMAR

Y O RD ER Ru li ng s b y s um mar

y o rd er d o n otha

ve p rec ed en ti al

ef fe ct. C it ati onto a s um mar y o rd er file d o n o r af

ter Ja nu ary 1, 200 7, is pe rmi tted a nd is go ver ne d b y F ed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll ate Procedur e 32. 1 an d th is c ou rt’ s Lo cal Ru le 3 2. 1. 1. W he n ci ti ng as um mar

y or de r inadocument file d wit h t hi s c ou rt, a pa rty m us t ci te e it he r th e F ed eral A pp en di x o r anel ect ro ni c d ata ba se (wi th the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a c opy o f it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Un ited States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in the City of New York, on the 16 day of April, two thous and ten.

th Present: José A. Cabranes,

Ba rri ngt onD. Pa rke r, Re en a R ag

gi, Circuit Judges
.

_______________________________________ United States of Am erica,

Appellee, v. No. 08-5660- cr Br ia n Pe arl, Defendant-Ap

pellant
.

________________________________________ FO R APP EL LE E: Burton T. Ryan, Jr., Assistant United Stat es Attorne y, for Benton J. Campbell, United Stat es Attorne y for the Eastern District

of New York, Central Islip, NY. FO R APP EL LA

NT: David A. Lewis, Assistant Fede ral Defender, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. Ap pe al fro m a ju dgm en t o f the Unit edSt at es Di stric t C ou rt for th e E as te rnDi stric t o f N ew Yo rk (J os ep h F. Bi an co , Ju dg

e ). UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON IT IS HE REB Y O RD ERE D, AD JU DG ED , A

ND DECREED that the appeal be DISMISSED as moot.2

De fe nd an t B ria n Pe arl a pp eals fro m a No ve mb er

20, 200 8 o rd er

of the Di stric t C ou rt convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of violating the conditions of his supervised release, revoking hi s s up er vis edre le as e, an d s en te nc in g hi m t o fo ur te enmo nths ’ im pr is on me nt . In response to an order ent ered by this Court on February 17, 2010, both parties have filed le tt er br ie fs a ss er ti ng tha t P ea rl w as re le as edfro m p ris ononOc to be r 21 , 20 09. As Pe arl is no lo nge r in pr is onan d i s n ot

se rvi ng a te rm of s up er

vis edre le as e, hi s a pp eal is mo ot . Se e, e. g. , Spencer v. Kemna , 52 3 U.S. 1 (1998). Ac co rdin gly , w e dis mi ss Pe arl’s ap pe al as mo ot . FOR THE COURT: Ca th er in e O ’H ag anWo lfe , C le rk
###### Editorial Note on Part 99

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 99 appear at 63 FR 39998, July 24, 1998.

#### § 99.4 Suspension of rules.

With notice to all parties, the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families or the presiding officer, with respect to pending matters, may modify or waive any rule in this part upon determination that no party will be unduly prejudiced and the ends of justice will thereby be served.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41319

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS DAVID ROBLES-GARCIA 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-832-1

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis David Robles-Garcia

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedStates, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d

624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The

appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
- 2289
- 2290
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
Remi Barbier, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer and Peter S. Roddy, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that to the best of our
knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Periodic Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: May 4, 2007/s/ REMI BARBIERRemi Barbier,Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ PETER S. RODDYPeter S. Roddy,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 22 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Azizhakim, Appellant, v. Gaul, Judge, Appellee. [Cite as State ex rel. Azizhakim v. Gaul (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 115.] Judgment affirmed. (No. 93-1422 -- Submitted November 9, 1993 -- Decided December 29, 1993.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.

65141.

Ali Azizhakim, pro se. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, )

)

) Case No.: 2:14-cv-12600-LVP-DRG

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) 

DOES 1-21, )

 ) 

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT

DOE #14, OWNER OF IP ADDRESS 24.11.212.121

Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice as to the 

Defendant identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as DOE # 14, said Defendant is also identified in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as the holder of the IP address 24.11.212.121.

DATED: September 26, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC,

By : s/Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul Nicoletti (P-44419)

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Ste. #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Landline: (248) 203-7800

eFax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

http://www.nicolettilawplc.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC

4:14-cv-12600-LVP-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 92
#### Brown *v.*The State.

Submitted July 16,

Decided July 28, 1906.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder. ■ Before Judge Littlejohn. Crisp superior court. May 24, 1906,

*Blalock & Gobb,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank A. Hooper, solicitor-general,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

The charge of the court was not erroneous 'for any reason assigned. The evidence supported the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,185,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,512,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    73,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,085,000
<PP&E>                                       6,255,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,537,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,175,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,917,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,884,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,175,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,439,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,337,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             390,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,991,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   166,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (6,157,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,157,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.71)
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES CEBULSKI and MARIE CEBULSKI, 

Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-12623

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVING 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF CLOSING DOCUMENTS AND DIRECTING 

APPEARANCE FOR IN-PERSON STATUS CONFERENCE

On July 29, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in this 

matter. The parties were directed to submit closing documents by August 28, 2015. See August 

11, 2015 Order, ECF No. 23. Unable to meet that deadline, the parties submitted a stipulation to 

extend the deadline by which they had to submit closing documents. The stipulation was 

accepted and the deadline was extended to September 11, 2015. See September 1, 2015 Stip. & 

Order, ECF No. 26. The deadline passed and the parties did not submit closing documents.

An in-person status conference was scheduled for October 6, 2015 after the deadline for 

submitting closing documents lapsed. See Notice to Appear, ECF No. 27. When the parties 

represented to the Court that they were nearing resolution and that the delay was occasioned by 

previously-unforeseen issues, the in-person status conference was converted to a telephonic 

status conference. See October 6, 2015 Order, ECF No. 28. The parties were also given until 

October 23, 2015 to submit closing documents. Once more, the closing documents were not 

submitted.

1:14-cv-12623-TLL-PTM Doc # 30 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 187
- 2 -

The Court scheduled another telephonic status conference with the parties for October 27, 

2015. See Notice to Appear, ECF No. 29. Once more, the parties repeated that the previously 

previously-unforeseen issues were still present but that time was still needed to resolve pending 

issues with the settlement agreement. The parties estimated that about three weeks would be 

sufficient to resolve the case. The deadline for submitting closing documents will be set three 

weeks from the last status conference. Another in person status conference will be scheduled, in 

the event it becomes necessary. This status conference will be in person. It will mark four 

months since the parties represented that they settled the matter.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to submit closing 

documents via the Utilities function of CM/ECF on or before November 17, 2015.

It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to appear for an in-person status 

conference on November 19, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 6, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on November 6, 2015.

s/Michael A. Sian 

MICHAEL A. SIAN

1:14-cv-12623-TLL-PTM Doc # 30 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 188