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

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF JOHN E. TROTTER 

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

§ 

§ No. 545, 2017 

§ 

Submitted: December 20, 2017 

Decided: January 16, 2018 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

This 16th day of January, 2018, upon consideration of John E. Trotter’s 

petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it 

appears to the Court that: 

(1) Trotter seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, under 

Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Superior Court to 

consider his pro se motion for leave to file an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

We conclude that Trotter’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 

jurisdiction of this Court. The petition must therefore be dismissed. 

(2) On October 3, 2017, Trotter pled guilty to Assault in the Second Degree 

in Criminal ID No. 1607007011 and Drug Dealing (Tier 4), Conspiracy in the 

Second Degree, and Possession of a Destructive Weapon in Criminal ID No. 

1608012612. The Superior Court ordered a presentence investigation. Trotter has 

not yet been sentenced. 
2

(3) The docket in Criminal ID No. 1608012612 reflects that on December 

8, 2017 the Superior Court referred, without reviewing, a document filed by Trotter 

to Trotter’s counsel. On December 18, 2017, Trotter filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus in this Court. Trotter seeks an order compelling the Superior Court to 

consider his pro se motion for leave to file an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

(4) A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a 

clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is 

available; and (iii) the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 

duty.1

 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, 

this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a 

particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the 

control of its docket.”2

 Trotter has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court 

arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty to which he has a clear right. 

(5) Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47, “[t]he court will not consider 

pro se applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the 

defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the defense.” 

Trotter is represented by counsel in the Superior Court. He does not contend that he 

was granted permission to participate with his counsel in the defense. If Trotter 

 

1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 

2 Id.
3

wishes to withdraw his guilty plea, he can ask his counsel to file a motion to 

withdraw the guilty plea. There is no basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus here. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED. The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
No. 71-24

#### William E. Higdon, MSG, U. S. Army v United States and Honorable Kenneth A. Howard, COL, JAGC, Military Judge, 5th Judicial Circuit, Judicial Area III, U. S. Army.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby denied.

(J. DARDEN would dismiss the Petition.)
August 18, 1939

No. 41976.

#### Protest 941618-G of B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.

Abstract 41665. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 141 

Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz. 

Whereas the United States honors Betty Shabazz as a wife, 

mother, educator, and advocate for civil and human 

rights, women, and the poor; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz, through her life and deeds, has been 

an inspiration to people around the world; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz was a woman of strength, resilience, 

perseverance, and grace who overcame the greatest of 

challenges; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz was born Betty Sanders in Detroit, 

Michigan, on May 28, 1936; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz met and married the controversial 

activist and leader El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm 

X) in New York in 1958; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 141 IH 

Whereas on February 21, 1965, while pregnant with twins, 

Betty Shabazz and their four daughters witnessed Malcolm X’s assassination; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz exhibited her resiliency and determination as a single mother, raising and educating her 

six daughters, Attallah, Qubilah, Ilyasah, Gamilah, and 

twins Malikah and Malaak; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz found the time to become certified as 

a registered nurse, and to later earn bachelor’s and master’s degrees and, finally, a doctorate in education administration from the University of Massachusetts; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz joined the administrative staff of 

Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, rising to 

high positions; 

Whereas, while preserving the public memory of her late husband, Betty Shabazz earned a reputation of her own, as 

an educator, public speaker, and advocate for women, 

education, and civil and human rights; 

Whereas on June 23, 1997, Betty Shabazz succumbed to injuries suffered in a tragic fire; 

Whereas Betty Shabazz personified the roles of wife, mother, 

and professional woman; and 

Whereas Betty Shabazz will be forever remembered for her 

love of family, her commitment to humankind, and for 

the joy and laughter she brought to all those who knew 

her: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress honors the life of Betty 

3 Shabazz. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
# C_2016200EN.01000301.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission

(Case C-312/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Loss of interest in bringing proceedings))

(2016/C 200/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Solsonica SpA, European Commission (represented by: J-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-22-2007 

# B udiyono v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3737

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B ud iyono v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1584. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1584UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 3737
F NU B UDI YONO,

Pet i t i oner
v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent
O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

( N o. A 96- 203- 450)
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 7, 2006 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J une 28, 2006 ) OR DE R A M E ND I NG NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJudge

IT IS N O W O R D E R E D t hat the N ot Precedenti al O pini on i n the abo ve case fi l ed Jun e 28 , 20 06 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s: O n page s i x, l i ne t en, del et e the w or d “a” aft er“i n” and be for e “a not her ” s o t hat th e p h ra s e re a d s “ to a b ri e f s u b m itte d in a n o th e r p e titio n ”
.

B yth e C o u rt, / s /T hom as L
. A m br o, C i r cui tJ udge D at ed: February22, 2007
No. 44203.

#### Protest 882239-G of Katz-Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was sustained accordingly.
No. 40329.

#### Protest 426258-G of Abraham & Straus, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Prom the record it was found that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37320. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Jaguar
Health, INC.


 


First
AMENDMENT TO 2020 New Employee


Inducement
Award PLAN


 


(Effective April 13, 2022)


 


Jaguar Health, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby adopts this First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to
the 2020 New Employee Inducement Award Plan (as amended, the “Plan”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS,
the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has adopted the Plan;


 


WHEREAS,
the Plan currently provides that the maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”)
that may be issued under the Plan is 500,000 shares;


 


WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan by 471,833 shares
to an aggregate of 971,833 shares; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


“4.1 Number of Shares.
Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.3, the aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be issued pursuant to Awards shall
not exceed 971,473 shares (the “Share Reserve”).


 


[signature page follows]


 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the effective date written above.


 


	 	Jaguar Health, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Lisa A. Conte
	 	 	Name: Lisa A. Conte
	 	 	Title: President & CEO
# C_2017112EN.01000901.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v British Film Institute

(Case C-592/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 13A(1)(n) - Exemptions for certain cultural services - No direct effect - Determination of the exempt cultural services - Discretion of the Member States))

(2017/C 112/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Appellant:

Respondent: British Film Institute

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(n) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, exempting ‘certain cultural services’, must be interpreted as not being of direct effect, so that in the absence of transposition that provision may not be relied on directly by a body governed by public law or other cultural body recognised by the Member State concerned supplying cultural services.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
1 

# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 349V

Filed: December 29, 2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

CANDACE L. HOLMES

, *

* Special Master Hamtilon

- Fieldman

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Joint Stipulation of Dismissal;

* Vaccine Rule 21(a); No Judgment;

* Order Concluding Proceedings

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nancy R. Meyers

, W a rd Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.

Claudia Gangi , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On March 17, 2016, Candace L. Holmes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation

under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 to

- 34 (2012)

. Petitioner alleged that the administration of a trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 14,

2015 caused her to develop pseudotumor cerebri. Pet. at 1

- 2, ECF No. 1.

On December 23, 2016, Petitioner and Respondent submitted a joint S tipulation of

Dismissal. Stip., ECF No. 23. Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21 (a) the above

- captioned

1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of wh ich would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review,

the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will

redact such material from public access.2

case is hereby dismissed without prejudice . The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a

judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
No. 46913.

#### Petition 6236-R of Henry S. Beach (El Paso).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It appeared in this case that prior to making entry the petitioner had a conference with the customs officials and furnished them all information he had relative to a discount from the wholesale list price of the Mexican manufacturer. On appeal to reappraisement a question of discount was decided adversely to the petitioner in the case of *United States*v. *Mexican Products Co.*(28 C. C. P. A. 80, C. A. D. 129). The United States examiner testified that in 35 years he had never had any. question in his mind about the good faith of the petitioner in his dealings with the customs officials. On the record the court was satisfied as to the good faith of the petitioner. The petition was therefore granted.
# Patent

## Title
Method for manufacturing a flat illumination unit

## Abstract

The thermal resistance test nd moisture resistance test all showed good results.

## Background
## Claims

1. A process for preparing a substrate for optical recording media free from birefringence which comprises injection-molding a polyvinylacetal resin resulting from acetalization of polyvinylalcohol to a degree of at least 60 mole % with at least one alicyclic aldehyde wherein the polyvinyl acetal resin temperature in injection molding is 270.degree. to 300.degree. C., the polyvinylalcohol has a degree of polymerization of 100 to 2,500 and the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of saponification of at least 95 mole %.

2. The process of claim 1 wherein the alicyclic aldehyde is selected from the group consisting of cyclohexanealdehyde, trimethylcyclohexanealdehyde, dimethylcyclohexanealdehyde, methylcyclohexanealdehyde, cyclopentanealdehyde, methylcyclopentanealdehyde, decahydro-beta-naphthaldehyde, cyclohexanecetaldehyde, alpha-camphorenealdehyde, phellandral, cyclocitral, trimethyltetrahydrobenzaldehyde, alpha-pyrronenealdehyde, myrtenal, dihydromyrtenal, camphenilanealdehyde, 4-methylcyclchexenealdehyde and 3-methylcyclohexenealdehyde.
# C_2017283EN.01002801.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/28

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA

(Case C-202/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 283/38)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

1

---
# General Instructions

DOT 1201 Guidance: http://www.dot.gov/recovery/docs/090422sec1201guidance.pdf

FRA ARRA Recipient Reporting: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/3007.shtml

# Detailed Instructions

# 1201 Report
```

[110th Congress Public Law 137]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ137.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1454]]

Public Law 110-137
110th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and 
     for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 14, 2007 -  [H.J. Res. 69]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 110-92 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) 
and <<NOTE: Ante, p. 1341.>> inserting ``December 21, 2007''.

    Approved December 14, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 69:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Dec. 13, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2015127EN.01004102.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/41

---

Action brought on 5 February 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-21/15)

(2015/C 127/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision finding that the applicant could not, since his promotion to grade AST 5, claim the fixed-rate allowance for working overtime and application for material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul decision No 0112/2014 removing the applicant’s fixed-rate allowance for working overtime with effect from 1 July 2014, adopted on 3 June 2014 by the Acting Director of Administration and Finance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul decision No 0112/2014 removing the applicant’s fixed-rate allowance for working overtime with effect from 1 July 2014, adopted on 3 June 2014 by the Acting Director of Administration and Finance;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant that allowance again with effect from the same date, together with interest at the rate of the ECB’s refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to allowances that are not granted to him, from the date on which they should have been paid until payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant that allowance again with effect from the same date, together with interest at the rate of the ECB’s refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to allowances that are not granted to him, from the date on which they should have been paid until payment in full;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant compensation for the material harm which he may incur from the contested decision — a sum provisionally estimated at EUR 1  000 — and as compensation for non-material damage a sum to be assessed by the Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant compensation for the material harm which he may incur from the contested decision — a sum provisionally estimated at EUR 1  000 — and as compensation for non-material damage a sum to be assessed by the Tribunal;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

---