alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marie BLANK, Administrator of the Estate of Layton W. Blank, Appellant, v. John Reed RIPLEY, Appellee.

No. 83-2111.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 23, 1983.

Decided Dec. 29, 1983.

John J. Horgan, Brian R. Plegge, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel & Keaney, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Isaac E. Young and Sylvan H. Robinson, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marie Blank, in her capacity as the administrator of the estate of Layton Blank, appeals from a final order of the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, 567 F.Supp. 1531, dismissing her wrongful death complaint. For reversal appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint on the ground that the cause of action for the wrongful death of Rosemary Petit abated at the death of Pet-it’s brother Layton Blank because he had not filed suit before his death. We affirm.

In May, 1980, Rosemary Petit died, allegedly as a result of appellee’s negligence. At the time of her death, she was survived only by her brother Layton Blank. Pursuant to Missouri’s wrongful death statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 537.080 (Cum.Supp.1982), Blank was the only party entitled to bring an action for the alleged wrongful death of his sister. In April, 1983, Blank died without having filed suit. In May, 1983, appellant, Blank’s widow and the administrator of his estate, filed an action for the wrongful death of Rosemary Petit.

*89In granting appellees motion to dismiss, the district court relied on *Pedroli v. Missouri Pacific R.R.,*524 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App. 1975). *Blank v. Ripley,*567 F.Supp. 1531, 1532 (E.D.Mo.1983). In *Pedroli,*the court held that a wrongful death action abates at the death of the person entitled to bring suit if that person has not filed suit prior to his death. 524 S.W.2d at 885-86. *See also Stoddard v. Cockrum,*531 F.Supp. 663 (W.D.Mo.1982).

After having carefully studied the briefs and the record in this case, we find no error of law or fact. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. *See*8th Cir.R. 14.

1

. The Honorable James H. Meredith, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
No. 53043.

#### Eugene Dietzgen Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 103595-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4847 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4847

   To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on active 
 military-civilian partnerships at trauma centers of military medical 
         treatment facilities within the Defense Health Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on active 
 military-civilian partnerships at trauma centers of military medical 
         treatment facilities within the Defense Health Agency.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Advancing Medical Readiness Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. STUDY ON ACTIVE MILITARY-CIVILIAN PARTNERSHIPS AT TRAUMA 
              CENTERS OF MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study on 
active military-civilian partnerships at trauma centers of military 
medical treatment facilities within the Defense Health Agency.
    (b) Elements.--The study required under subsection (a) shall--
            (1) identify and define active military-civilian 
        partnerships through which members of the Armed Forces 
        participate in the civilian health care system;
            (2) assess the costs borne by the Department of Defense for 
        providing care through such partnerships;
            (3) identify metrics and best practices for tracking and 
        evaluating the skills and readiness gained by clinicians of the 
        Department of Defense by providing care through such 
        partnerships; and
            (4) identify policies, processes, and expertise needed to 
        bill civilian health insurance and patients.
    (c) Briefing.--Not later than May 1, 2025, the Secretary shall 
brief the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on the results of the 
study required under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
FCSC-2014.12.31 EX 10.22






Exhibit 10.22


AMENDMENT TO OPTION GRANT AGREEMENT


This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Nonqualified Stock Option Grant Agreement, between Fibrocell Science, Inc. and David Pernock, dated as of July 19, 2013 (the “Option Agreement”) is made and entered into as of March 11, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Fibrocell Science, Inc. (the “Company”) and David Pernock (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into the Option Agreement, which was issued pursuant to the Fibrocell Science, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain provisions of the Option Agreement to reduce the period of time the Executive could exercise the option granted pursuant to the Agreement upon his termination of service with the Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:


1.Effective upon the date hereof, Section 3 of the Option Agreement is deleted and shall be replace in its entirety with the following: 


“3.    Term of Option.
(a)     The Option shall have a term of 10 years from the Date of Grant and shall terminate at the expiration of that period, unless it is terminated at an earlier date pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or the Plan.


(b)    The Option shall automatically terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events:
(i)    The expiration of the six-month period after the Grantee ceases to be employed by, or provide service to, the Employer, if the termination is for any reason other than Disability (as defined in the Plan), or death (as defined in the Plan).
(ii)    The expiration of the one‐year period after the Grantee ceases to be employed by, or provide service to, the Employer on account of the Grantee’s Disability.
(iii)    The expiration of the one‐year period after the Grantee ceases to be employed by, or provide service to, the Employer, if the Grantee dies while employed by, or providing service to, the Employer or while the Option remains outstanding as described in subparagraph (i) or (ii) above.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event may the Option be exercised after the date that is immediately before the tenth anniversary of the Date of Grant.  Any portion of the Option that is not exercisable at the time the Grantee ceases to be employed by, or provide service to, the Employer shall immediately terminate.” 


2.Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Option Agreement.  


3.All other provisions of the Option Agreement not amended by this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. 





































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


FIBROCELL SCIENCE, INC.	
			
	By:
	/s/ Kimberly M. Smith
	 

	Name:
	Kimberly M. Smith
	 

	Its:
	Interim Chief Financial Officer
	 




EXECUTIVE
	
			
	By:
	/s/ David Pernock
	 

	Name:
	David Pernock
No. 41813.

#### Protest 23278-G of Abraham & Straus, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain articles embroidered and in part of lace similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Smith*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, T. D. 40544) and *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 id. 530, T. D. 41396), Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40), and filet laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 id. 77, T. D. 47065) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
No. 51451.

#### Protests 121969-K, etc., of Asche Bandor Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination,, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. 1 In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Robert W. Shanks, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch WesternResources, LLC;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004/s/ ROBERT W. SHANKSRobert W. ShanksPresident
# C_2007071EN.01006001.xml

| 28.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/60

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 71/19)

GREECE

Operating licences granted

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| HELLENIC IMPERIAL AIRWAYS SA | Vouliagmenis Avenue 102 & Ermou |
| GR-16777 Hellinikon |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

HELLENIC IMPERIAL AIRWAYS SA

Vouliagmenis Avenue 102 & Ermou

GR-16777 Hellinikon

passengers, mail, cargo

22.1.2007

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SWIFTAIR HELLAS AE | 5th km Spata — Loutsa Avenue — Athens International Airport — Building 17 |
| GR-19019 Spata |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

SWIFTAIR HELLAS AE

5th km Spata — Loutsa Avenue — Athens International Airport — Building 17

th

GR-19019 Spata

passengers, mail, cargo

29.1.2007

AUSTRIA

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BRAUNEGG LUFTTAXI GmbH | Naglergasse 11 |
| A-1010 Wien |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

BRAUNEGG LUFTTAXI GmbH

Naglergasse 11

A-1010 Wien

passengers, mail, cargo

28.2.2007

Operating licences revoked

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BRAUNEGG LUFTTAXI GmbH | Obere Donaustr. 37 |
| A-1020 Wien |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

BRAUNEGG LUFTTAXI GmbH

Obere Donaustr. 37

A-1020 Wien

passengers, mail, cargo

28.2.2007

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005

2

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONON ALSTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2374 DFL JFM P

vs.

M. SANCHEZ, et al.,,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 6, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On December 9, 2004, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed December 9, 2004, plaintiff was advised 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 33 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion for summary

judgment or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: March 16, 2006. 

12

alst2374.46osc

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 33 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 9534)

#### Rohloff Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 901142.

(Decided November 5, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Ooelvran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00449-CR

DUSTIN COLE CLEARMAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 57,414-B

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Dustin Cole Clearman pleaded guilty to theft of property under 

$2,500 with two prior theft convictions, a state-jail felony.2 See Tex. Penal Code 

Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2017). The trial court impliedly found him 

guilty and sentenced him to one year in the state-jail division of the Texas 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2Clearman admitted getting caught stealing an $8 light from a Walmart.
2

Department of Criminal Justice.

3 Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney

has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. 

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); see In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) 

(analyzing the effect of Anders). Although Appellant was given an opportunity to 

file a pro se response to the Anders brief, he has not done so, nor has the State 

filed a brief in response to the Anders brief.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this 

court must independently examine the record to see if any arguable ground may 

be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991). We also consider the briefs and any pro se response. See

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Only after we conduct our own examination to 

determine whether counsel has correctly assessed the case may we grant his 

motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 

351 (1988).

 

3There is no express guilty finding. The trial court, however, assessed 

punishment and signed a written judgment. See Holeman v. State, No. 06-13-

00191-CR, 2014 WL 860336, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 4, 2014, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that assessing punishment 

and entering written guilty judgment implied rendition of guilt).
3

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with 

counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing 

in the record that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 

206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: KERR, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 24, 2018
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 this amendment no. 1 to the annual report of Transax
International Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Walters, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Stephen Walters
-------------------
Stephen Walters
Chief Executive Officer

June 7, 2007
30°00'N

38°00'N

36°00'N

34°00'°N

32°00'N

60°00'E 6200

64°00'E

66°00'E 68°00'E T0°00'E

72°00'E

7400'S

76°00'E

‘9Dusar-Shaiga
Copper. tin

FARAH

NIMROZ

TKhanneshin
Carbenatite

HELMAND

75 South Helmand
Travertine, opp!

Lode gold

[1 Takhar

BALKH
TAKHAR
y y ‘T3Panisher Valley
SAMANGAN eile
{|  FARYAB i
BADGHIS Feakhas) [ens nuns

| ji RARWAN APIS UNA
dHajcak ‘acini
iron
GHOR BAMYAN KABUt

Ch Evaporte
BADAKHSHAN,

waroak | § NANGARHAR
1 ak ‘Bhunday-Achin
DAYKUNDI r se | ort
° “ ‘o6aR, =—=
22 Uruzgan aeart
PAKIYA
TZarkashan mh
0d, copper zy
URUZGAN A Ketawas
FT i
Bakhud ZABUL
acai PAKTIKA
Kundalyan
‘Gad, copper

Ss
KANDAHAR =

as

oo

24 Nuristan
Pegmatites

EXPLANATION

[__] Area of interest
Province border
«= Country border

0 100 200 KILOMETERS
0) 75

150 MILES

Scale 1:7,000,000
Exhibit 32.2




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 Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James A. Longaker, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original 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.






AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      James A. LongakerJames
      A. LongakerChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date:
November 19, 2008