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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROSCHEIM V. WILKERSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL NO. 4:09-CV-2539

 :

v. : Hon. John E. Jones III

 :

MS. SCHAFER, et al., :

 :

 Defendants. :

O R D E R

March 10, 2010

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff Roscheim V. Wilkerson (“Plaintiff” or “Wilkerson”), an inmate

presently confined at the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (“SCI

Huntingdon”) in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing

a Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Named as

Defendants are the following SCI Huntingdon employees: Correctional Officer

Hengst, Hearing Examiner Mitchell, Deputy Warden Corbin, Deputy Warden Fisher,

Superintendent Lawler, Drug and Alcohol Specialist Schafer, and Drug and Alcohol

Supervisor Ciavarella. (See id. at 1, 2 § III.) He has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. (Doc. 5.)

Presently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiff entitled “Petition to

Case 4:09-cv-02539-JEJ-SF Document 10 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 3
Amend and/or Supplemental Brief for 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Doc. 7.) In this document,

Plaintiff names the same Defendants as in the Complaint and states that he seeks to

add a request for injunctive relief in the form of a transfer to a different state facility to

his Complaint. (See id.) He states that he seeks this relief because he fears that SCI

Huntingdon employees will retaliate against him for filing the instant civil action. 

(See id.) Because it appears that Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for relief based on an

occurrence or event that happened after the filing of his Complaint, his Motion will be

granted, and his filing will be construed as a supplement to the Complaint. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted, and service of the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Supplement (Doc. 7) will be

directed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is construed

as a request to proceed without full prepayment of fees and costs, and the

Application is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED, and this

filing is construed as a Supplement to the Complaint.

3. The United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the Complaint

2

Case 4:09-cv-02539-JEJ-SF Document 10 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 3
(Doc. 1) and Supplement (Doc. 7) on Defendants Hengst, Mitchell,

Corbin, Fisher, Lawler, Schafer, and Ciavarella. (See Doc. 1 at 1, 2 

§ III.)

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

3

Case 4:09-cv-02539-JEJ-SF Document 10 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Walter G. Goodrich, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Goodrich Petroleum Corporation; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2016



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Walter G. Goodrich 
|Walter G. Goodrich     
|Chief Executive Officer
Memorandum 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings 

From: John Bradfield 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RAD IATION 

To: Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-6002, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

This memorandum summarizes meetings held with stakeholders in the month of January, 2015 

On January 27, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Directors Kevin Culligan and Steve Fruh 

met with Howard Feldman of the American Petroleum Institute. EPA generally answered basic 

questions about the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On January 27, Associate Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counsel for Air Joseph Goffman 

and Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation. EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan 

proposal for existing sources. 

On January 28, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Directors Kevin Culligan and Clean Air 

Markets Division Director Reid Harvey and met with the Canadian Electricity Association. EPA generally 

answered basic questions about the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES GELNETT, et al. : Case No. 4:15-CV-1910

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

TOWNSHIP OF CHAPMAN, :

a 2nd class township, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 24, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part.

2. The action is dismissed without prejudice and is remanded to the Court of 

Common Pleas of Snyder County.

3. The clerk is directed to close the case file. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-01910-MWB Document 8 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 1
<Page>


EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-98738, No. 333-39407, No. 333-38730 and No. 333-67050)
pertaining to the Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option
Plan, As Amended, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-53772)
pertaining to the Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-37941, No. 333-61477, No.
333-79939, No. 333-95671 and No. 333-58206) of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in
the related Prospectus of our report dated January 23, 2003, with respect to the
financial statements of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
March 24, 2003


                                     1
#### Alvin B. JONES, Appellant, v. HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY-SOUTHEAST, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3656-000]


Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 20, 1997, Wisconsin Public Service 
Corporation (WPSC) tendered for filing an executed Transmission Service 
Agreement between WPSC and Wisconsin Power & Light Company. The 
Agreement provides for transmission service under the Open Access 
Transmission Service Tariff, FERC Original Volume No. 11.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before October 1, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25545 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Marcum LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-162609) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-75800, 333-70344, 333-44032, 333-83187, 33-94234, 333-89798, 333-131773, 333-126129, 333-151113, 333-161231 and 333-167324) on Form S-8 of TranSwitch Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 15, 2011, with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and related consolidated financial schedule of TranSwitch Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and for the year ended December 31, 2010, which report is included in the annual report on Form 10-K of TranSwitch Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ Marcum LLP





Hartford, Connecticut


March 15, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6014

EDDIE LEON NEWBY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN T. CALLAHAN, III; MARK KANTRO, P.C.;

WILLIAM RUTHERFORD,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-96-1614-A)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Leon Newby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Newby v. Callahan, No. CA-96-1614-A (E.D.

Va. Nov. 18, 1996). 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
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNew polymers for low-gravity purification of cells by phase partitioningA potentially powerful technique for separating different biological cell types is based on the partitioning of these cells between the immiscible aqueous phases formed by solution of certain polymers in water. This process is gravity-limited because cells sediment rather than associate with the phase most favored on the basis of cell-phase interactions. In the present contract we have been involved in the synthesis of new polymers both to aid in understanding the partitioning process and to improve the quality of separations. The prime driving force behind the design of these polymers is to produce materials which will aid in space experiments to separate important cell types and to study the partitioning process in the absence of gravity (i.e., in an equilibrium state).Document ID19840007199Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHarris, J. M.*(Alabama Univ. Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 30, 1983Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:170957NASA-CR-170957Accession Number84N15267Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-33978Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007199.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10455

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER VERNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(1:00-CR-79-2)

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

October 15, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Christopher Verner appeals his conviction

for conspiracy to receive, possess, and conceal firearms, and

receipt and possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 371, 922(j). He argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of

his Fourth Amendment rights.

This court applies a two-tier standard in reviewing a district

court’s denial of a motion to suppress. United States v. Hunt, 253

F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s fact findings
2

are reviewed for clear error and its ultimate conclusion as to the

constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de

novo. Id. at 229-30. The evidence is viewed in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party. Id. at 230. 

Verner concedes that the initial stop of his vehicle was

justified, but he argues that the search of his person and

subsequent detainment lasted beyond that which is allowed by Terry

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, “police officers may stop

and briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes if they

have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 736 (5th Cir.

2000). Reasonable suspicion must be supported by particular and

articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences

from those facts, reasonably warrant an intrusion. Id. 

While Officer Bone was questioning Verner, he attempted to

walk away from the officer and was subsequently searched and

handcuffed. Verner was also non-responsive when Officer Bone asked

whether there were any weapons in the vehicle. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government the

officer’s actions were reasonable. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27;

United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc).

The district court did not err in denying Verner’s motion to

suppress.

AFFIRMED.
#### Alex K. EASTON, d/b/a George Easton Furniture Company, Appellant, v. Muriel A. WEIR, as Executrix of the Estate of Edward Earl Weir, deceased, Appellee. Alex K. EASTON, d/b/a George Easton Furniture Company, Appellant, Edward Earl Weir, II, Garnishee, v. Muriel A. WEIR, as Executrix of the Estate of Edward Earl Weir, deceased, Appellee.

Nos. 69-29, 69-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1969.

Alex K. Easton, in pro. per.

Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have studied the record, briefs and all other papers filed in this matter and find that appellant has substantially made the same argument in this appeal as he did in the case of Easton v. Weir, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 115. No error having been made to appear in his appeal from the order discharging surety and from the' order discharging the garnishee, the orders herein appealed from are affirmed.

Appellee requests that certain language contained in appellant’s brief regarding ap-pellee’s lawyer be expunged from the record. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that appellee’s lawyer, Sam Mann, Jr., is a highly respected member of The Florida Bar. Therefore, that language contained in appellant’s brief going to Mr. Mann’s honesty and integrity should be and the same is hereby expunged from the record on the authority of State ex rel. Carter v. Beggs, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 423.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

MANN, J., concurs in result.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1939 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1939

To extend the suspension of duty on hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,3-
                         benzenedimethanamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2005

  Mr. Warner introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the suspension of duty on hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,3-
                         benzenedimethanamine.

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

SECTION 1. HEXANEDIOIC ACID, POLYMER WITH 1,3-BENZENEDIMETHANAMINE.

    (a) Amendment.--Heading 9902.01.71 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to hexanedioic acid, polymer 
with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' 
and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
        consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application.--If the effective date 
        provided in paragraph (1) occurs on or after January 1, 2007, 
        then notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, and upon proper 
        request filed with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
        not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, 
        of goods described in heading 9902.01.71 of the Harmonized 
        Tariff Schedule of the United States which--
                    (A) was made after December 31, 2006, and before 
                the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act, and
                    (B) would have been subject to no duty had the 
                amendment made by subsection (a) been in effect on the 
                date of such entry or withdrawal,
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if the amendment made by 
        subsection (a) applied to such entry or withdrawal.
                                 <all>
```
#### NORTH MIAMI GENERAL HOSPITAL and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. Michael GILBERT and National Guaranty Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1978.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Thomas E. Scott, Miami, for appellants.

Bunnell, Knight & Graham and David Graham, Fort Lauderdale, Jeanne Hey-ward, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., BARK-DULL, J., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-third party plaintiffs appeal a summary, final judgment in favor of the *427third party defendant on their complaint for indemnity or joint contribution arising out of a wrongful death action.

The deceased, Noah Krakower, had a long history of mental illness including suicidal tendencies and was being treated by Dr. Michael Gilbert. After suffering physical injuries as a result of a suicide attempt, Mr. Krakower was admitted by Dr. Gilbert and several orthopedic physicians to the orthopedic section of the defendant, North Miami General Hospital. Although Dr. Gilbert noted on Krakower’s patient progress chart that he should have 24-hour attendants, no special precautions were ordered nor were the attending nurses (including the private ones) notified of Krakower’s suicidal tendencies. There was also no notation to that effect in the doctor’s orders chart. A private nurse, under the supervision of defendant hospital, left Krakower alone momentarily and he leaped to his death. Krakower’s widow filed a wrongful death action against the hospital and its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company, and alleged that the hospital was negligent in that it knew or should have known of the deceased’s suicidal tendencies and should have taken the necessary precautions. The hospital and its insurer filed a third party complaint for indemnity and for joint contribution against Dr. Gilbert and alleged that he failed to fully advise the hospital and the attending nurses of Krakower’s suicidal tendencies and to order the necessary precautions. Subsequently, after a hearing upon motion of Dr. Gilbert, summary judgment on this third party complaint was entered in- his favor. The hospital and its insurer appeal. We reverse.

After a review of the record on appeal, we find that their remains genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment, specifically whether or not Dr. Gilbert properly notified the hospital of Krakower’s suicidal tendencies and ordered the hospital to take the necessary precautions and further whether the hospital then failed to properly instruct or supervise the attending nurses to assure 24-hour uninterrupted surveillance of Krakower.

Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.