alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00030-CV

In re Sabrina Oberg

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

PER CURIAM

On the record before us, we cannot conclude that relator is entitled to the relief

sought. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a), 52.8(a). Because relator has failed to provide this Court with

a record, including a copy of any motion or order from which she seeks relief, we cannot determine

if relator is seeking relief from a final judgment from the county court or attempting to stay her

eviction pending an appeal in the county court. See Tex. Prop. Code §§ 24.007, 24.0051 (West

Supp. 2011). Further, we cannot determine whetherrelator has complied with anyapplicable interim

rent orsupersedeas bond requirements. Id. Consequently, we deny her petition for writ of mandamus

and motion for temporary relief without prejudice.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin

Filed: January 26, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN LEGGETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-283 Erie

v. )

)

MARILYN BROOKS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on September 29,

2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12], filed on

August 10, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be denied and that a

certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and

on Respondents. Petitioner was subsequently granted an extension of time in which to

file objections until September 11, 2006 [Doc. No. 13]. No objections were filed. After

de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 10, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00283-SJM-SPB Document 14 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.3



---

NEWS RELEASE

---



|Contact: |  | Christopher L. Hughes                     
|-------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|         |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|         |  | Cabot Industrial Trust                    
|         |  | (312) 266-9300                            



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P. COMPLETES TENDER OFFERS
AND CONSENT SOLICITATIONS FOR OUTSTANDING DEBT SECURITIES



Chicago, Illinois, February 14, 2003  Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P. and its sole General Partner, Cabot Industrial Trust, today announced that Cabot L.P. has successfully completed its tender offers for all of its 7.125%
Redeemable Notes Due 2004 (NYSE: CTRP 04), 8.200% Series A Medium Term Notes Due 2005 and 8.500% Series A Medium Term Notes Due 2010.



As of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on February 13, 2003, the expiration date, Cabot L.P. had received tenders for 98.13% of the 7.125%
Notes, 100% of the 8.200% Notes and 86.95% of the 8.500% Notes. Cabot L.P. has accepted for payment all of those notes tendered as of the Expiration Date.



Goldman, Sachs & Co. acted as Dealer Manager for the offers. The Information Agent was Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc. and the Depositary
was Alpine Fiduciary Services, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

h0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148462

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148462

COA: 317471

Wayne CC: 12-007363-FH

MARTELL DeVANTE WELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3448 

To reauthorize the Director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 

to support Holocaust education programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. RUBIO, and 

Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Director of the United States Holocaust 

Memorial Museum to support Holocaust education programs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Never Again Education 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 4(a) of the Never Again Education Act (Pub8 lic Law 116–141; 134 Stat. 638) is amended by striking 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3448 IS

1 ‘‘each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2030’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3131 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3131

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to expand and clarify the 
  exclusion for orphan drugs under the Drug Price Negotiation Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 25, 2023

  Mr. Barrasso (for himself and Mr. Carper) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to expand and clarify the 
  exclusion for orphan drugs under the Drug Price Negotiation Program.

    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 ``Optimizing Research Progress Hope 
And New Cures Act'' or the ``ORPHAN Cures Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING AND CLARIFYING THE EXCLUSION FOR ORPHAN DRUGS UNDER 
              THE DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATION PROGRAM.

    Section 1192(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320f-1(e)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following 
        new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Treatment of former orphan drugs.--In 
                calculating the amount of time that has elapsed with 
                respect to the approval of a drug or licensure of a 
                biological product under subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
                subparagraph (B)(ii), respectively, the Secretary shall 
                not taken into account any period during which such 
                drug or product was a drug described in paragraph 
                (3)(A).''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``only one rare disease or 
                condition'' and inserting ``one or more rare diseases 
                or conditions''; and
                    (B) by striking ``such disease or condition'' and 
                inserting ``one or more rare diseases or conditions (as 
                such term is defined in section 526(a)(2) of the 
                Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.5.11

                                                      December 26, 2002


MOVIE STAR, INC.
1115 Broadway
New York, NY 10010

     It is mutually agreed that the Financing Agreement entered into between us
dated April 24, 1996, as amended or supplemented (the "Financing Agreement") is
amended effective November 7, 2002 as follows:


     The last sentence of Section 3.1 is deleted and the following is
substituted in its place and stead:

     "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section 3.1, in
the event that the Prime Rate is and remains at 4.25% per annum or lower, the
interest charged on the non-overadvance portion of the average daily balances in
the Loan Account shall be four and one quarter percent (4.25%) per annum."


     Except as hereinabove specifically set forth the Financing Agreement, shall
continue unmodified.


                                       ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC.

                                       BY: /s/ Jerry Sandak
                                          --------------------------------------
                                             JERRY SANDAK
                                             Senior Executive Vice President


THE FOREGOING IS ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED TO:
MOVIE STAR, INC.

By:  /s/ Thomas Rende
   ---------------------
     THOMAS RENDE
     Chief Financial Officer
[Cite as Scanlon v. Brunsman , 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522.]

S CANLON , A PPELLANT , v. B RUNSMAN , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Scanlon v. Brunsman , 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522.] Habeas corpus — Habeas corpus relief not proper when petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from custody — Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. (No. 2006-1482

─ Submitted November 15, 2006

─ Decided December 27, 2006.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County,
No. 06CA2902.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a habeas corpus petition. {¶ 2} On May 30, 2006, appellant, Neil P. Scanlon, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Ross County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Chillicothe Correctional Institution Warden Timothy Brunsman, to release him from prison. Scanlon claimed that he was entitled to be released on August 23, 2006, instead of his scheduled release da te of December 23, 2006. On June 29, 2006, which was before the release date that Scanlon claimed, the court of appeals dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} In this appeal as of right, S canlon contends that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition. {¶ 4} In general, habeas corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical
confinement. Crase v. Bradshaw , 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 702 N.E.2d 423. Because Scanlon claimed he was entitled to an earlier release date but not to immediate release from pr ison, he did not state a viable habeas corpus claim. See, e.g., Hanes v. Haviland (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 755 N.E.2d 898 (“At best, even if Hanes is en titled to good-time cred it, he would have been entitled to earlier consideration of release on parole rather than outright release from prison. Because extraordinary re lief in habeas corpus is restricted to immediate release from confinement, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition”); State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356. The conten tions that Scanlon raises on appeal do not alter this dispositive fact. {¶ 5} Therefore, we affirm the judgme nt of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL and L ANZINGER , JJ., concur.

__________________ Neil P. Scanlon, pro se. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

_____________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Trustees and Shareholders of
Keystone Property Trust:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-58971, 333-59251, 333-67637, 333-74277, 333-77627, 333-89095,
333-92741, 333-31504 and 333-110450) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-70529) on Form S-8
of Keystone Property Trust of our report dated February 19, 2004, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Keystone Property Trust as of December 31,
2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash
flows, and shareholders' equity and comprehensive income for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial
statement schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report
on Form 10-K of Keystone Property Trust.

     Our report refers to the fact that effective January 1, 2003, the Company
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 145, Rescission
of FASB Statements Nos. 4, 44 and 64, Amendment of FASB Statements No. 13 and
Technical Corrections and SFAS No. 123 Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.
Our report also refers to the fact that effective September 30, 2003, the
Company implemented the clarifying guidance of EITF Abstract, Topic D-42, The
Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced
Conversion of Preferred Stock and restated its 2002 financial statements.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 9, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2619]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Assembly, Council, and 
Conference on Bulk Carrier Safety; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 10:45 AM on Tuesday, October 28th, in Room 6103, at U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20593-0001. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize preparations for 
the 19<SUP>th</SUP> session of the Extraordinary Council, 
79<SUP>th</SUP> session of Council and 20<SUP>th</SUP> session of the 
Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which is 
scheduled for 14-28 November 1997, at the IMO Headquarters in London. 
The meeting will also finalize preparations for the Conference on Bulk 
Carrier Safety which is scheduled in conjunction with the second week 
of the Assembly from 24-28 November 1997. Discussions will focus on 
papers received and draft U.S. positions.
    Among other things, the items of particular interest are:
    <bullet> Reports of Committees;
    <bullet> Reports on Diplomatic Conferences;
    <bullet> Work Program and Budget for 1998-1999;
    <bullet> Election of Members of the Council.
    The Conference on Bulk Carrier Safety discussions will begin after 
the completion of the discussion for the Assembly and will include the 
following:
    <bullet> Consideration and adoption of amendments to SOLAS to 
improve bulk carrier safety
    <bullet> Consideration and adoption of amendments to Resolution 
A.744(18)--Guidelines on the enhanced surveys of bulk carriers and oil 
tankers; and
    <bullet> Consideration and adoption of resolutions and 
recommendations related to bulk carrier safety.
    Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: Director, International Affairs, U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, Commandant (G-CI), Room 2114, 2100 Second Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling: (202) 267-6919. Interested 
persons of the conference of Bulk Carrier Safety may seek information 
by writing: Office of Human Element & Ship Design Division, U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters, Commandant (G-MSE-1), Room 1304, 2100 Second 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling: LCDR Dan Pippenger 
at (202) 267-0171.

    Dated: October 8, 1997.
Russel A. LaMantia,
Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-27241 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
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 Remedent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.




Date:      August
      14,  2009
                By:
                /s/ Stephen RossName:  Stephen
      RossTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  (Principal Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Remedent, Inc. and will be retained by
Remedent, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Bobby Lee DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 25, 1970.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant directly appeals his conviction and sentence for the crime of' robbery. *406His court-appointed counsel has filed what is commonly known as an “Anders” brief,1 i. e., one in which he asserts that there are no arguable or meritorious points to be found in and from the record herein. Although he has filed such a brief counsel has not, as has been the classic case, moved to withdraw.

From the certificate of service endorsed in the brief it appears that appellant’s counsel served only the Attorney General with a copy of said brief, and therefore that no copy was certified as having been served on the defendant himself. So at this point, for ought that appears, the appellant is unaware that his counsel on appeal is not urging nor even suggesting a specific ground for reversal. He, appellant, is in no different position, it seems to us, than one whose counsel is seeking leave to *withdraw*because he believes the appeal to be non-meritorious. In the latter case notice to the appellant is required,2 and we think it comports with fairness and expediency to require such notice in a case such as that before us.

Accordingly, counsel for an appellant in a criminal case who files an “Anders” brief, whether he also seeks to withdraw or not, must serve a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw, if filed, on the appellant and do so by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereafter, he should certify service of the foregoing documents to this court and file therewith the aforesaid signed return receipt. At that point, the administrative processes of this court will afford appellant appropriate time to seek additional counsel, if the exigencies of the case then require, and/or to file his own brief raising therein such grounds of appeal or making such argument as he may feel advised.

In view hereof we hereby continue further deliberation of, or inquiry into, the merits of this appeal; and counsel for appellant is hereby directed to comply with the requirements set forth above on or before fifteen days from the date of this order unless additional time, upon good cause shown, is granted.

It is so ordered.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ, concur.

1

. *See*Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

2

. See Anders v. California, id.; and cf. Walker v. State (Fla.App.3d 1969) 220 So.2d 649; Williams v. State (Fla. App. 1st 1966), 186 So.2d 824; and McNealy v. State (Fla.App.1st 1966), 183 So.2d 738.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27888]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Meeting

AGENCY: United States Information Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: A meeting of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 
will be held on October 22 in Room 600, 301 4th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
    At 8:30 a.m. the Commission will hold a panel discussion on 
Fulbright at 50. The panelists are Ambassador Julia Chang Bloch, 
President, U.S.-Japan Foundation, Member, Steering Committee; and Mr. 
Michael Schneider, Executive Director, Steering Committee. At 9:30 a.m. 
the Commission will hold a panel discussion on international exchanges. 
The panelists are Dr. Dan E. Davidson, Chair, Alliance for 
International Educational and Cultural Exchanges, CEO, ACTR/ACCELS; Mr. 
William Reese, President, Partners of the Americas; and Mr. Michael 
McCarry, Executive Director, Alliance for International Educational and 
Cultural Exchanges.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please call Betty Hayes, (202) 619-4468, if you are interested in 
attending the meeting. Space is limited and entrance to the building is 
controlled.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Rose Royal,
Management Analyst, Federal Register Laison.
[FR Doc. 97-27888 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Case 1:06-cv-00033-MBC-SPB   Document 23   Filed 07/13/06   Page 1 of 1