alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-cr-301

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

JEROME J. STROTHER, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Strother’s guilty plea to

Count One of the Information charging him with possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter

before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion,

and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00301-GCS Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

being a felon in possession of a firearm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00301-GCS Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
**Exhibit 15.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-171927) pertaining to the 2006 StockIncentive Plan and the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan of Bitauto Holdings Limited of our reports dated April 22, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Bitauto Holdings Limited, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Bitauto Holdings Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/Ernst & Young Hua Ming LLP 

Beijing, People’s Republic of China 

April 22, 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALEX GREENWALD, by his legal guardians PATRICIA

GREENWALD and PHILIP GREENWALD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3645

[September 6, 2017]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care 

Administration; L.T. Case No. 15-06VW.

Philip E. Greenwald, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Tracy Cooper George, Chief Appellate Counsel, Agency for Health Care 

Administration, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK LAMONT HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1186, CA-01-4182) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick Lamont Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Lamont Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Harris , Nos. CR-98-1186, CA01-4182 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 13, 2001; entered Dec. 14, 2001 & filed Jan. 9, 2002; entered Jan. 10, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
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 Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa A. Herbert, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:   (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.    /s/ Teresa A. Herbert
Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
November 9, 2007   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.   1
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Dangerous liaisons -- sun and stupidity

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Dangerous liaisons -- sun and stupidity 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. American Forces Information Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  American Forces Information Service, Department of Defense 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 90-470-P. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Defense billboard ; #30; Defense billboard (1988) ; #30. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
### Re: Fw: Request for review of HPV 2 P/C Data received from Vertellus to satisfy req of test rule for CASRN 68187

- 84

- 8.

Chuantung Lin to: John Schaeffer 08/16/2012 01:41 PM

Cc: Bob Boethling, campanella.paul, Tracy Williamson, Myrta Christian History: This message has been replied to.

Hi John,

I reviewed the test results on the melting point and boiling point of this HPV2 test chemical, Oxidized Castor Oil (CASRN:68187

- 84

- 8), and found their test results were acceptable to EPA.

From the melting point tested result, it indicated there was no melting point in the temperature range of

- 150 o C to 50 o C. The test sample is a liquid form. Usually, the freezing point measurement c ould be performed and reports the freezing point instead of melting point. However, there was no freezing point could be observed either. Therefore, the statement of "no melting point or freezing point in the temperature range of

- 150 o C to 50 o C could be obtained" could be adopted to fulfill this data endpoint.

The boiling point tested results indicated there were three data points, 102 o C, 116 o C, and 218 o C, respectively. There three data are acceptable to fulfill the test requirement for the boiling poi nt. The nature of substance is a complexed substance with various degrees of oxidation on the Castor oil. Therefore, the boiling point could be reported as a range value of "102

- 218 o C" for the test result instead listing three different values.

Please l et me know if you have any further question.

Daniel

_______________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Daniel Chuantung Lin Industrial Chemistry Branch Office of Chemicals Safety and Pollution Prevention US EPA 1200 Pennsyl vania Ave., NW (7406M)
From: Yannayon, Laura

To: Monica Soucier

Cc: Buchanan, Tiffini

Subject: NSR rules

Date: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:00:02 AM

Hi Monica,

I had a new person in our office do a check of your proposed rules to ensure you had

incorporated all of EPA's comments, and it appears you did! She did find a couple of typo's

though that we wanted to point out (a fresh set of eyes always helps!). Otherwise things look

good. I don't think EPA's pointing out typo's rise to comments that you need to include in

your staff report. Please keep me in the loop as you move towards rule adoption.

In Rule 207:

In Section A.2.d, it appears several defined terms need to be capitalized.

In the definition of :

AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT, the C in construction should be capitalized.

CARGO CARRIERS, the R in rule should be capitalized.

RACT is missing a period at the very end of the definition.

In Sections D.1.c, D.1.d, and D.4.a.2, the word Rule should be capitalized.

In rule 206, the definition of minor project, the word " containments " should be

contaminants.

In Rule 101, the definition of:

"ASPHALT", the term bitumen's, should be capitalized and with no apostrophe

" BOILER OR STREAM GENERATOR" Stream should be Steam.

" HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE" has a typo: manufacturer

= s

"MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE" has the same typo

" OPEN-TOP VAPOR DEGREASER" is missing the "e" in degreaser.

" PERMANENT" should the "actual" be capitalized since it is a defined term?

Laura 1

2

3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00530-CR

Tito Lambert, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 44216-A, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Tito Lambert filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals that it subsequently denied without written order on June 27, 2012. SeeTex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012). Lambert attempted to challenge that ruling by filing

a notice of appeal with thisCourt. It also appearsthat Lambert attempted an appeal with the trial court,

which issued a certification that Lambert had no right of appeal.

We do not have jurisdiction to review the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s denial

of a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004)

(defining writ power of courts of appeals); see also Ex parte Rogers, Nos. 02-11-00333-CR,

02-11-00334-CR, 02-11-00335-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7706, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Sept. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for want of

jurisdiction because court lacked jurisdiction over attempted appeal from court of criminal appeals’s
denial of application for writ of habeas corpus). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 23, 2012

Do Not Publish

2
## NUMBER 13
- 23
- 00 4 52
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE CHANTEL ELIZONDO

O n Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras 1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Chantel Elizondo seek s to compel the trial
court to vacate the following orders signed on October 23, 2023: (1) the “ Order on Father’s Motion for Emergency Relief Regarding Travel Authorization ” ; and (2) the “ Order on
Father’s Motion for Alternative Relief. ” Relator further seeks to stay all trial court

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).2 proceedings pending the resolu tion of this petition for writ of mandamus

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10. Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
Co. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adeq uate remedy by appeal. In re
USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833,
839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having exami ned and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law , is of the opinion that relator has not met h er burden to obtain
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus , and we similarly deny relator’s requ est to stay the trial court proceedings

.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the 2 5 th d ay of October, 20 23

.
Figure 3. Linear Regression Results

The computed 420290100 (Site A) — 240150003 (Site B) linear rel

Site A concentration = 2.5204+ 1.0131

*

Site B concentration

va

_____________________________________________

50

*

*

*** z__’ 40

* *

*

* •The linear regression 

30 * *

*

*

on the most recent 5 y

*

*

paired (SiteA: Site B)

**

*

•The residuals from th

20

are used in the subseq

*

* bootstrapping.

10

*

*

**

*

*

**** *

0

___________________________________________________________________________

I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I I I

0 10 20 30 40

vb
# C_2007211EN.01000101.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/1

---

(2007/C 211/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 199, 25.8.2007

OJ C 199, 25.8.2007

Past publications

OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

March 28, 2011 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Motion of Delta 

 For a Start Up Date Extension (Tokyo-Guangzhou) 

 Docket DOT-OST-2010-0285 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced Motion filed on March 25, 2011 and there are no objections. In these circumstances, 

we urge that the requested Tokyo-Guangzhou start up date extension be granted as soon as 

possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Bob Finamore, DOT 

info@airlineinfo.com
No. 38977.

#### Protest 147785-G of Mortimer M. Lee (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of articles in chief value of *cellulose*filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T17:17:05-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00162-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

Bryan H. Reynolds, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-003925, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

The Texas Department of Public Safety has filed a document entitled “Appellant’s

Unopposed Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Interlocutory Appeal.” In the document, the

Department states that it is withdrawing its notice of interlocutory appeal. The Department further

states that it has conferred with appellee’s attorney of record regarding this matter, and appellee is

unopposed to the withdrawal of the notice of appeal in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: July 8, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6985

JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT W. SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-168-5-HO) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John R. Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John R. Taylor, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 53689.

protests 131872-K, etc. (New York).

#### Corkland Archery Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sawed dagame lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *John A. Hunter Hardwood Corp.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 139, C. D. 1143), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


NUMBER                             CORTEX
CX____                      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.                         SHARES
                                                                     ___________

             INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

COMMON STOCK                                                        COMMON STOCK


                                             SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS


                                                               CUSIP 220524 30 0


This Certifies that



is the record holder of


          FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK,
                          PAR VALUE $0.001 PER SHARE,

of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation
upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate and the
shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware and
to the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of the
Corporation as from time to time amended. The record holder of this Certificate
may obtain from the Secretary of the Corporation, upon request and without
charge, a copy of the statement of the powers, designations, preferences and
relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class or
series of Capital Stock of the Corporation and the qualifications, limitations
or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. This Certificate will be
valid only when countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the
Registrar.

Witness the seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly
authorized officers.

Dated:


/s/ Maria S. Messinger         [CORPORATE SEAL]     /s/ Vincent F. Simmon, Ph.D.
------------------------                            ----------------------------
   Maria S. Messinger                                   Vincent F. Simmon, Ph.D.
   VICE PRESIDENT AND                                       PRESIDENT AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER