alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7326

CHRISTINE ANN CARRIGAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-

2009)

Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Ann Carrigan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

September 1, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on September 5, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Christine Ann Carrigan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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. See Carrigan v. Attorney

General of Maryland, No. CA-00-2009 (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2000).* 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
#### Antonio LEGATO, Petitioner, v. Captain DeBOIS, Director of Corrections and Rehabilitations Department, and the Honorable Stuart Lamotte, Respondents.

No. 71-708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 25, 1971.

Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for petitioner.

Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents.

Ordered that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed August 13, 1971, is hereby denied. See Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 868.

Habeas corpus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33293]


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

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME, DATE, AND PLACE: 29 January 1998, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; 30 
January 1998, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; Central Arkansas Library System, 
100 Rock Street, Little Rock, Arkansas.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED: NCLIS Planning Meeting; Day 1: Focus on the 
Commissioners; Day 2: Focus on the Commission's Action Plan; NCLIS 
Business Meeting.

    To request further information or to make special arrangements for 
physically challenged persons, contact Barbara Whiteleather (202-606-
9200) no later than one week in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: 15 December 1997
Jane Williams,
Acting Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-33293 Filed 12-17-97; 9:22 am]
BILLING CODE 7527-01-M
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sooner Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), R.C. Cunningham II, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















Date: January 7, 2011
By:/s/ R.C. Cunningham IIR.C. Cunningham II,Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2015

Mr. Robert Miller

135 Regency Square

Lafayette, LA 70508

Dear Mr. Miller:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your May 26, filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-1897, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 24, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00206

- CV

CR+ ENTERPRISES, INC

.,

Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY , as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006

- NC4, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2006

- NC4, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19332 Honorable Peter A. Sakai , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

When we granted Appellee’ s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief, we set the brief due on November 12, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b), (d). Before the once

- extended due date, Appellee filed an unopposed second motion for a 14

- day extension of time to file th e brief. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due on November 29, 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my h and and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc.s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-61752, 33-80918, 33-86940, 33-93088, 333-77233, 333-50774, 333-50776, 333-111498), on Form S-4 (File Nos. 333-88802, 333-115419) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-89156, 333-115810) of our report dated June 11, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended April 25, 2004.
 
 
 
 New Orleans, Louisiana
 June 24, 2004
256 La 376

#### Mrs. Juanette GANT v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

No. 50680.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Sun Erection Company, Inc. and The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 234 So.2d 776.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
Document

Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO
AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO.7 TO AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of July 9, 2019, between IDEXX Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is at 6100 east Shelby Drive, Memphis Tennessee 38141, U.S.A. (“IDEXX”) and Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., a New York corporation with offices at 100 Indigo Creek Drive, Rochester, New York, U.S.A. (“OCD”).


WHEREAS, OCD and IDEXX have entered into that certain Agreement dated as of October 16, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto effective January 1, 2005, Amendment No. 2 thereto effective October 15, 2006, Amendment No. 3 thereto effective January 18, 2008, Amendment No. 4 thereto effective December 28, 2011, Amendment No. 5 thereto effective December 9, 2013, and Amendment No. 6 thereto effective January 1, 2017 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), regarding supply by OCD of dry slides for IDEXX veterinary chemistry analyzers; 


WHEREAS, OCD desires to discontinue manufacture of the Drop Volume Slide and Drop Volume Fluid and IDEXX agrees to amend the Agreement to reflect the foregoing;


NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1. Schedule 5-A to the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
a.Drop Volume Fluid (Catalog Number 6802784) and Drop Volume Slides (Catalog Number 6802789) are hereby deleted each of from (a) the list of Catalyst Slides -- Other, and (b) the list of Consumables (Products Not Included Under Tiered Slide Pricing).


2.Exhibit A (Specifications) to the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
i.  Purchase Material Specification for each of Drop Volume Fluid (Catalog Number 6802784) and Drop Volume Slides (Catalog Number 6802789) are hereby deleted.


3.Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in effect.  This Amendment is to be construed as part of the Agreement.  Each reference to “hereof”, “hereunder”, “herein” and “hereby” and each other similar reference and each reference to “this Agreement” and each other similar reference contained 








in the Agreement shall from and after the date set forth above, refer to the Agreement as amended hereby.


4.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed in duplicate by their respective authorized representatives as of the day and year first written above:


						
	ORTHO-CLINICAL DIAGNOSTICS, INC.	IDEXX OPERATIONS, INC.
		
	By: /s/ Heidi Casaletto	By: /s/ John Hart
	Name: Heidi Casaletto	Name:  John Hart
	Title: EVP, Portfolio Strategy & Marketing	Title: Senior Vice President 
		
	Date:  February 19, 2020	Date:  Mar-10-2020




Acknowledged and consented to, solely as guarantor pursuant to Section 30 of the Agreement:
    
IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC.


By: _____________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
Exhibit 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION I, James Anderson, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Voxpath
Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Uintah Mountain Copper Company;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report.

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

                  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
                  that material information relating to the registrant,
                  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
                  by others within those entities, particularly during the
                  period in which this annual report is being prepared.

                  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                  controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date");
                  and

                  c) Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 8, 2006      /s/James Anderson
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        James Anderson
                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leon RICHARD.

No. 62242.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Leon Richard applying for supervisory writs. East Baton Rouge Parish.

Denied.

TATE, DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ervin Dean LUCKY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-10598.

D.C. No. CR-99-00908-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ervin Dean Lucky appeals his conviction following a stipulated-facts bench trial and 36-month sentence for destruction of an aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Defendant’s attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to *An-ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Lucky has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

The *Anders*brief does not identify any potential issues for appeal. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Pen-*
      *279
      *son v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)-discloses no issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Anthony Charles TURNER, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Respondent.

No. 69-753.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Archiable James STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Etc. Respondent.

No. 44069.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 24, 1973.

Petition denied.
#### Ivory Lee ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6292

JOHNIE KIB THOMPSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-98-219-2)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnie Kib Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnie Kib Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

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

the district court. See Thompson v. Angelone, No. CA-98-219-2

(E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 1999). 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33197]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Proposed Additions to the Procurement List; Correction

    In the document appearing on page 64351, F.R. Doc. 97-31939, in the 
issue of December 5, 1997, in the third column, the listing for Office 
and Miscellaneous Supplies (Requirements for the Marine Corps Air 
Station, Beaufort, North Carolina) should read (Requirements for the 
Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina).
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-33197 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7036 

To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 

of 2004 to repeal the sunset provision. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2020 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. JORDAN, and Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and 

Reform Act of 2004 to repeal the sunset provision. 

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 ‘‘Antitrust Criminal 

5 Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

8 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

9 (1) Conspiracies among competitors to fix 

10 prices, rig bids, and allocate markets are categoriVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:52 Jun 18, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7036.IH H7036

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7036 IH

1 cally and irredeemably anticompetitive and con2 travene the competition policy of the United States. 

3 (2) Cooperation incentives are important to the 

4 efforts of the Antitrust Division of the Department 

5 of Justice to prosecute and deter the offenses de6 scribed in paragraph (1). 

7 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act, and the 

8 amendments made by this Act, is to strengthen public and 

9 private antitrust enforcement by providing incentives for 

10 antitrust violators to cooperate fully with government 

11 prosecutors and private litigants through the repeal of the 

12 sunset provision of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty En13 hancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note). 

14 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 211 of the Antitrust 

16 Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 

17 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is repealed. 

18 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

19 Section 212 of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhance20 ment and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is 

21 amended— 

22 (1) by striking paragraph (6); and 

23 (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para24 graph (6). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2315 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2315

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the disclosure of 
agreements between institutions of higher education and certain foreign 
                    sources, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

  Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Steube, and Mr. 
   Fallon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the disclosure of 
agreements between institutions of higher education and certain foreign 
                    sources, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Higher Education Transparency Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF AGREEMENTS WITH CERTAIN FOREIGN SOURCES.

    Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30)(A) The institution will make available, on a 
        publicly accessible website of the institution, the full 
        content of any agreement between the institution and a foreign 
        source that provides, or intends to provide, language and 
        cultural teaching resources and services to students of the 
        institution.
            ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `foreign 
        source' has the meaning given such term in section 
        117(h)(2).''.
                                 <all>
```