alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RANDY MERWIN STONE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 83222 

# FILED
JAN 1 4 2022

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The right to appeal is statutory; where no statute or court rule provides for an appeal, no right to appeal exists. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction. The grounds for relief asserted in the motion had to be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. NRS 34.724(2)(a), (b) (providing that except for a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or a motion that is incident to the proceedings in the district court, a habeas corpus petition is the exclusive remedy to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence); Harris v. State,

1 We express no opinion whether appellant can satisfy the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34.



# 2 2.. - eltA6sSUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) l947A calm>C.J. Parraguirre130 Nev. 435, 438-39, 329 P.3d 619, 622 (2014) (discussing the exclusiveremedy provision and exceptions to it). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.



# i AtiLk c-ez,it,t-

, .. J. Hardesty 

# Poe.. Pickering 

# 7 J.

cc: Hon Michael Villani, District Judge Randy Merwin Stone Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
Page 1 of }

Pho vesSiNU DIVISION _ . AUG 1 2 2010
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS PER -UGHIAAC

As of: August 12, 2010

PUBLIC Statue Posted
Posted: August 12,
SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0065
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Susan Klein
Address:

258 Vallette Street

New Orleans, LA, 70114
Email: spklein@cox.net

General Comment

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status
as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001),

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/12/2010
#### ANNA B. HUMPHREYS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX, ETC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUMPHREYS & RYAN, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, AND DENNIS J. RYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted January 27, 1933

Decided June 21, 1933.

Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

Bor the defendants-appellants, *David T. Wilentz.*

Bor the plaintiff-respondent, *John O. Stochel.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from an order striking its answer and entering judgment for the plaintiff. The action was brought for the reasonable value of the use and occupation •of premises known as No. 74 Main street, Woodbridge, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the reasonable value was $320 a month. Judgment was entered for rent at the rate of $333.34 a month. Affidavits of realtors indicated $175, $190, $280 and $290 a month as a reasonable rental. The answer denied the allegation that $320 was the reasonable value of the use and occupation. Such denial seems neither sham or frivolous. The issue was clearly for the jury and not for the court.

The judgment is reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 475 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 12, 2002.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4687) to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to 
assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in 
the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life 
or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the 
basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
A01A0762.

#### HUBERT v. FALCONER et al.

(545 SE2d 680)

Phipps, Judge.

Dorothy Hubert sought medical treatment from Dr. Walter Falconer. Based on his review of diagnostic studies performed by other health care providers, Dr. Falconer removed her left kidney. After the pathology report showed removal of the kidney to have been unnecessary, Hubert sued Dr. Falconer and his group practice for medical malpractice. Hubert also asserted a battery claim, alleging that Dr. Falconer obtained her consent through ambivalent disclosures in the informed consent form. Hubert appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict in Dr. Falconer’s favor, as well as the order denying her motion for new trial. We find no error and affirm.

1. Hubert first complains of the court’s refusal to give a corrective jury instruction.

*244Decided February 22, 2001.

*Kirschner & Venker, Andrew R. Kirschner, Thomas J. Venker,*for appellant.

*Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, Earl W. Gunn,*for appellees.

Relying on *Harris v. Tatum,**1***Hubert asked the trial court to charge the jury that “as there generally exists an inequality of bargaining position as between a medical patient and ... [a] physician, any ambiguity in the consent document should be construed as against [the physician].”2 The court instructed the jury to resolve any ambiguity in the consent document against the doctor “if” there existed an inequality of bargaining position.

Because an inequality of bargaining position between patient and doctor does not invariably exist, the charge as given substantially covered the principles in the request. The court did not err in refusing to give a corrective charge.3

2. Hubert’s next complaint arises primarily from the admission of hearsay testimony relating to the diagnosis of her condition by health care providers other than Dr. Falconer.

This testimony was admitted to explain Hubert’s conduct in seeking treatment from Dr. Falconer. In response to a motion in limine brought by Hubert, the court prohibited the defense from using the hearsay statements to prove the truth of the matters asserted. Hubert contends that the court erred in allowing defense counsel to violate its ruling during closing argument. A review of the transcript shows that defense counsel was challenging the accuracy of comments by Hubert’s attorney concerning the substance of these statements and arguing that, if the out-of-court declarants had made the statements attributed to them by opposing counsel, Hubert would have called them to testify. We find no violation of the court’s ruling on the motion in limine.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.*

1

216 Ga. App. 607 (455 SE2d 124) (1995).

2

Id. at 609 (1) (b).

3

 See *Wadkins v. Smallwood,*243 Ga. App. 134, 140 (5) (a) (530 SE2d 498) (2000).
---

---

Exhibit 32

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

In
connection with the annual report of Ampal-American Israel Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned executive officers of the Company certifies, to the best of such
executive officers knowledge, 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 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By: /s/ Yosef A. Maiman 
Yosef A. Maiman President and CEOAmpal-American Israel CorporationMarch  30, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Irit Eluz
Irit EluzCFO and Senior Vice President-Finance and TreasurerAmpal-American Israel CorporationMarch  30, 2007
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



---

---
[Civ. No. 11695.

First Dist., Div. One.

Aug. 20, 1941.]

#### W. H. SCHWALEN et al., Respondents, v. RETAIL FOOD CLERKS UNION LOCAL 870 (an Unincorporated Association) et al., Appellants.

James F. Galliano for Appellants.

Breed, Burpee & Robinson for Respondents.

KNIGHT, J.

Defendants appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, and from an order overruling their demurrer to the complaint, in an action brought to enjoin defendants from picketing plaintiffs’ grocery store, and from maintaining other forms of boycott against plaintiffs and their place of business.

Subsequent to filing of defendants ’ opening brief the identical points urged therein against the validity of the preliminary injunction were brought before the Supreme Court in another case which has since been decided *(McKay*v. *Retail Automobile Salesmen’s Local Union No. 1067,*16 Cal. (2d) 311 [106 Pac. (2d) 373]), and afterwards a petition for a writ of *certiorari*was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States (313 U. S. 566 [61 Sup. Ct. 939, 85 L. Ed. 1525]). Plaintiffs expressly concede that the decision rendered therein is here controlling, and that accordingly the order granting the preliminary injunction herein' must be *546reversed.  It is so ordered; and the appeal taken from the order overruling the demurrer is dismissed for the reason that it is not appealable.

Peters, P. J., and Ward, J., concurred.
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18992]

[[Page 60482]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-7077-N-15A]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Multifamily Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
published a document in the Federal Register of August 28, 2023, a 
rescindment of a systems of records notice concerning the Integrated 
Real Estate Management System (iREMS). The document did not contain a 
comment closing date. This notice establishes a due date of September 
27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaDonne White; 451 Seventh Street SW, 
Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number 202-708-3054 
(this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to 
receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well 
as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more 
about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 28, 2023, in FR Doc 2023-18446, 
on page 58593, in the third column, add at the end of the Dates caption 
the following:
    Comments Due Date: September 27, 2023.

Aaron Santa Anna,
Associate General Counsel, Office of Legislation and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-18992 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
```
# Dec. 28: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Dec. 28, 2014

December 28, 2014

Release # 2014128FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA -** U.S. and partner nation military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Dec. 28 using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct eight airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted five airstrikes in Iraq Dec. 28 using fighter and attack aircraft against the ISIL terrorists.

The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release:

**Syria***  Near Kobani, eight airstrikes destroyed an ISIL building, thirteen ISIL fighting positions, one ISIL heavy machine gun and struck three ISIL fighting positions and a large ISIL unit.

**Iraq***  Near Sinjar, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL fighting position and struck an ISIL tactical unit.*  Near Mosul, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.*  Near Al Qaim, two airstrikes destroyed three ISIL guard shacks.*  Near Ar Rutbah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL bunker and an ISIL vehicle.

Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports.

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition Nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Amendment dated 10/8/2003 to Consulting Agreement dated 10/1/1999



 EXHIBIT 10.38 
  
 NEUROLOGIX 
 One Bridge Plaza 
 Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024 
  
 October 8, 2003 
  
 Michael G. Kaplitt, MD PhD 
  
 Dear Dr. Kaplitt: 
  
 This letter (the “Amendment”) amends that certain Consulting Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1999 (the “Consulting Agreement”),
between yourself and Neurologix, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Neurologix”). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Consulting Agreement. 

 
 It is therefore agreed as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4 of the Consulting Agreement is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 

  
 4. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and
shall continue for eight (8) years until September 30, 2007, unless earlier terminated for cause (including breach of any agreement between the parties) by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. 
  

	 	2.	Except as amended above by this Amendment, all of your and Neurologix’s respective rights and obligations under the Consulting Agreement and the related Confidentiality,
Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1999, between yourself and Neurologix, shall be deemed preserved by this amendment, without modification or reduction, subject to the effect of any prior waiver effected by
either party. 

  

	 	3.	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of New York applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within such State.


  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,
  
 NEUROLOGIX, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/    Martin J. Kaplitt        

	 	 	

	 	 	 Dr. Martin J. Kaplitt
 President



  

	
	
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

	
	 /s/    Michael G. Kaplitt        

	

	Michael G. Kaplitt, MD PhD

  

 -2-
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60160 Conference Calendar

__________________ PATRICK STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JIMMIE CARLISLE, Cpt., George Co. C.W.C., ET AL., Defendants, SABRINA MARTIN, Director of Offender Services, S.M.C.I., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:92-CV-434-RR

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Patrick Stewart appeals the denial of his motion brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). His motion for correction of the record is DENIED as unnecessary. We review for abuse of discretion. Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp. , 943 F.2d 6,No. 95-60160 -2- 8 (5th Cir. 1991). "It is not enough that the granting of relief might have been permissible, or even warranted -- denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion." Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). The record indicates that Stewart failed to inform the court of any transfer between October 1993 and the date in January in which the court signed the order and judgment dismissing Stewart's case. Moreover, Stewart's exhibits do not indicate a housing transfer between October 1993 and January 1994. Further, a review of the disclosure form which the district court required Stewart to complete and to file indicates that the questions were factual in nature and did not require necessarily the use of a law library in order to complete the form. Stewart does not deny that he received the form. He merely contends that he did not receive it until January 19, 1994. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Aucoin , 943 F.2d at 8-9. To the extent that Stewart argues that the district court erred by delaying any evidentiary hearing before the judgment of dismissal and that the court violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(5), these matters were not raised in the district court. This court need not address issues not considered by the district court. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice."No. 95-60160 -3- Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF ZYGO CORPORATION (DELAWARE)

Technical Instrument Company (California)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 8, 1996)

Syncotec Neue Technologien und Instrumente GmbH
100% owned by Technical Instrument Company (effective as of September 1, 1997)

NexStar Corporation (Colorado)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of September 12, 1996)

TechniStar Corporation (Delaware)
25% owned by NexStar Corporation

Sight Systems, Inc. (California)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 19, 1997)

Zygo TeraOptix, Inc. (Delaware)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of May 5, 2000)

Zygo KK
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of October 1, 1999)

Zygo PTE Ltd
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of January 1, 1998)

ZygoLOT GmbH
60% owned by Registrant (effective as of October 2, 1999)

Six Brookside Drive (Connecticut)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of January 9, 1998)
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jye-ejng

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2178

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

There are already attorney offices organizing class action lawsuits in my town to take advantage 

of this 'new issue'. To me, this is a perfect sign that yes, there is an issue. And no- the consumer 

is not ultimately being protected. 

Please keep to your cooking- Labor issues.

Thank you.