alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2345

___________________________ Kyle Greene; Krystle Lynn Greene lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v. Meeker County Department of Human Services (DHS) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
____________ Submitted: January 31, 2024 Filed: February 5, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Kyle and Krystle Greene appeal the district court’s 1 denial of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal of their pro se complaint.

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Middleton v. McDonald , 388 F.3d 614, 616 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); Chester v. St. Louis Hous. Auth. , 820 F.2d 259, 260 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (stating that Rule 60(b) provides for relief only under exceptional circumstances and is not intended to substitute for a timely appeal). Accordingly, we affirm and deny the Greenes’ motion to modify the caption as moot. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133504 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133504 COA: 274250 Wayne CC: 05-004269-02 RAYMOND SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0711 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 18, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 21
                                                                     ----------


                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF 
             TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. ("TASA")
                                
                                

Name of Subsidiary   Jurisdiction of   Shareholder  Name Under Which Subsidiary
                      Incorporation                          does Business

Beck Evaluation &      New York           TASA        Beck Evaluation & Testing
Testing Associates,                                   Associates; BETA
Inc.

MESI Acquisition       New York           TESC        MESI Acquisition Corp.;
Corp.                                                 Mildred Elley; Mildred
                                                      Elley School, Inc.

Modern Learning        Delaware           TASA        Modern Learning Press
Press, Inc.

TASA Educational       Delaware           TASA        TASA Educational Services
Services Corporation                                  Corporation
("TESC")
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Response Biomedical Corp. - Exhibit 10.1





 

  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the use of our report dated April 15, 2004 and
  our Comments by Auditors for United States Readers on Canada-United States Reporting
  Difference (which includes an explanatory paragraph describing conditions that
  raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going
  concern as described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements) dated
  April 15, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Response
  Biomedical Corp. as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years
  in the three year period ended December 31, 2003 included in the Registration
  Statement (Form 20-F/A), dated June 30, 2004.



	Vancouver, Canada,

      June 30, 2004	/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

      Chartered Accountants
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 09-0451

**Post Focus Draft 1 09/15/2009**

ENGINEER: Hall \ JAS

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

CRSS :

Chemical Name:

S-H20: 0.00002 g/L @

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @

MW: 521.00 %<500 %<1000

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (07/07/2009):

Migration to groundwater: negligiblePBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 1-2 Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 4 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: NoINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 09-0451INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 09-0451CBI:

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Jason A, Sese

Organization: ERG

CALL TO: Richard Jourdenais

Organization:

Date: 07/08/2009

Time: 2:15 pm

Phone:

Concerning ?

PMN: 09-0451
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greenfield Online, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 to be filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dean A. Wiltse, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

Date: August 15, 2005                                By: /s/ Dean A. Wiltse
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Dean A. Wiltse
                                                     President and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Greenfield Online, Inc. and will be retained by Greenfield Online,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Michael Bohannan 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, Texas May 27, 2015
Clerk of the Court Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Re: Bohannan v. State No. PD-0347-15 #1841746

79107-9606 /Jl.Q 

# JUN042015

'6! 

## FILEDIN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS JUN032Tti 

## DearClerk: AbelAcosta,Clerk Last week Imailedyou my Petition for Discretionary Review 

### in the above styled andnumbered cause. I have found that Page Two contained a drafting error. I have enclosed a corrected Page Two and would ask that you please substitute it for the erroneous 

### page previously sent. Bycopy of this.letter, Iamalso providing the Asst. Dist. Att'y a copy of the corrected Page Two. 

### I amenclosing anadditional copy of this letter for 

### file stamping to verify receipt and substitution. Please return it to me in the postpaid envelope provided. Thankyou for your time and help and please accept my apology for this extra hassle. Sincerely,

cc: William Delmore file 

# &££&-

Michael W. Bohannan 806-381-7080

### Jimenez. 361 S.W.3d 679, 683 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). App. Op@7-8. Initially, Bohannan would note that Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 841 does not address whether or not the stigmatizing and qualitatively different criminal punishment that civil committees are subjected to applies while the very legality and constitutionality of that commitment is pending resolution through 3 the appellate process. And more so, whether it applies after an appellate court has already determined a commitment order should be reversed. The appellate court's reliance on Jimenez is, at best, misplaced. Jimenez was convicted of possession of a firearmwhile, 

### at the time of thatpossession, being a convicted felon, under a final criminal judgment. While that judgment was later overturned in ahabeas action, this court found that the conviction for felon in possession should stand because be was one at the time of his possession. Jimenez, 361 S.W.3d 679. Bohannan was convicted of committing a civil commitment 

### violation which occurred on April 24, 2011. CR 280-82. This was after Bohannan had obtained the appellate court's determination that he had not been provided the process he was due to be committed, a determination which the State appealed. In the criminal realm, a prior judgment cannot be used in the punishment of a later act unless it is a "final" judgment. InJimenez, theprior criminal judgment was final at the time it was used to prove felon in possession (and apparently final at the time of that possession as well). In this case, the civil commitment remained on appeal at the time of every violation alleged against Bohannan; acts which could only be criminal through avalid commitment judgment. And
- 2 - 3 See Footnote#1. There is no Footnote #4
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-4048) pertaining to the 1992, 1995 and 1996 Stock Option Plans and
Individual Officer and Director Stock Option Agreements of Medical Resources,
Inc. of our report dated May 26, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule for the years ended December 31, 1997 and
1995, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.



                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Hackensack, New Jersey
May 26, 1998
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20187; OREGON Disaster Number OR-20000 Declaration of Economic Injury]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Oregon dated 02/08/2024. *Incident:*
                         Winter Ice Storm. *Incident Period:*
                         01/12/2024 through 01/20/2024.
 DATES: Issued on 02/08/2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/08/2024.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Clackamas, Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Multnomah, Washington. *Contiguous Counties:* Oregon: Benton, Columbia, Deschutes, Douglas, Hood River, Klamath, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, Wasco, Yamhill. Washington: Clark, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum. The Interest Rates are: PercentBusiness and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 201870. The States which received an EIDL Declaration are Oregon, Washington. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2024-03016 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
#### Fred LEWIS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 1, 1957.

John J. Tribell, William S. Tribell, W. J. Stone, Pineville, for appellant.

*636Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Farmer Helton, Commonwealth’s Atty., Martin R. Wilson, County Atty., Pineville, for ap-pellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

The appellant was convicted of making an unlawful arrest, as denounced by KRS 43S.1S0, and was sentenced to six years in prison. Appellant insists that the court erred in failing to sustain his demurrer to the indictment, because the indictment failed to allege facts or circumstances necessary to constitute an unlawful arrest.

The indictment charged the commission of the offense as follows:

> “The said Fred, Lewis * * * did unlawfully arrest * * * James Payne with a pistol * * * and by threats and violence cause said James Payne to submit to the will * * * of Fred Lewis, and by putting him in fear, restrain the said James Payne of exercising his freedom and liberty and did forcibly * * * transport said James Payne * * * to the Bell County jail against the will of said James Payne, without authority of law and without having a right to do so, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases * *

The indictment follows the language of the statute. Ordinarily, this would be sufficient. However, we have specifically held that an indictment under KRS 435.150 is not sufficient if it merely alleges that the arrest was made “without authority of law.” Kimbler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 273; Carroll v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 599, 175 S.W. 1043. An example of a sufficient indictment under KRS 435.150 is set forth in Commonwealth v. White, reported in 101 S.W. 331, 30 Ky.Law Rep. 1322

It is the opinion of the *Court*that the Kimbler case is controlling and requires the judgment to be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. In the event there is another trial upon a new indictment, the circuit court will sustain objections made to the introduction of testimony relating to other crimes which the appellant is said to have committed upon Reída Stewart and Emma Dell Hendrickson.

All other questions are specifically reserved.

The judgment is reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

CAMMACK and STEWART, JJ., dissent because they believe the indictment is sufficient.
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
Presidential Associates I Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”), on Form
10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2007, 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: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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
Partnership.









Date:      
April 14,
2008                                                                                       
/s/ Eggert
Dagbjartsson


Eggert Dagbjartsson


Chief
Executive Officer and


President








Date:      
April 14,
2008                                                                                       
/s/ Andrew
Prague


Andrew Prague


Chief Financial Officer
#### Joe B. SPRINGFIELD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34498.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1962.

Brown & Shuman, Lubbock (on appeal only), for appellant. .■

William H. Davis, Chief, Enforcement Division, State Securities Board, Austin, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is selling securities without having been registered as a dealer by the Securities Commission of Texas; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

In view of our disposition of this appeal, a statement of the facts will not be necessary.

The trial judge admonished the jury against a quotient verdict in his written charge as follows:

> “ * * * it would not be permitted of each juror to state or set down a number of years and that you should add up the total of the *sums so*stated and divide the same by the number of jurors, and thereby agree to be bound by ascertaining the result so obtained.”

Appellant excepted to this charge because it “constitutes and is a comment upon the weight of the evidence by the court with implication of the court’s opinion that the Defendant should be assessed a term in the penitentiary” and is “an undue limitation of the jury’s field of deliberation insofar as the penalty is concerned.”

The punishment provided in Article 581-29, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., for the offense charged has no minimum penalty. The jury could have assessed a fine and no confinement at all, or confinement for a period of days, or a period of months, and the court’s reference to “years” was clearly improper for the reasons stated in Green v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 226 S.W.2d 454. See also Barrera v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 246 S.W.2d 480.

The State was allowed to prove that appellant had made four separate sales of securities in addition to the one for which he was there indicted for the purpose of *941showing the he was a dealer in securities. Upon another trial, the court’s charge should limit the jury’s consideration of this evidence to the purpose for which it was admitted. Graeb v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 293, 283 S.W. 819, and Thomas v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 671, 282 S.W. 237.

For the errors above pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
            
<S>                                         <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              OTHER                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                  20,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                (20,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  26,176
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0               4,104,605
<OTHER-SE>                                           0             (4,130,781)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,267                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,837,331                  24,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             425,767                   1,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,627,064)                (24,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                438,626<F2>              38,626<F3>
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,130,781)                  13,911
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)                       0
<FN>
<F1>Retained Earnings Deficit.
<F2>Reduction of Payables.
<F3>Reduction of Payables.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1822

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to permit the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the prohibition on the termination of conservation reserve contracts for certain lands, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 24, 1996

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to permit the

Secretary of Agriculture to waive the prohibition on the

termination of conservation reserve contracts for certain

lands, 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. TERMINATION OF CONSERVATION RESERVE

4 CONTRACTS BY OWNERS OR OPERATORS.

5 Section 1235(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16

6 U.S.C. 3835(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and

7 inserting the following:

8 ‘‘(2) CERTAIN LANDS EXCEPTED.—
2

•S 1822 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara2 graph (B), the following lands shall not be sub3 ject to an early termination of contract under

4 this subsection:

5 ‘‘(i) Filterstrips, waterways, strips ad6 jacent to riparian areas, windbreaks, and

7 shelterbelts.

8 ‘‘(ii) Land with an erodibility index of

9 more than 15.

10 ‘‘(iii) Other lands of high environ11 mental value (including wetlands), as de12 termined by the Secretary.

13 ‘‘(B) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive

14 the application of subparagraph (A) to land if

15 the Secretary determines that the land will be

16 used only—

17 ‘‘(i) for haying, grazing, or other use

18 not involving the destruction of vegetative

19 cover; and

20 ‘‘(ii) in a manner that adequately pro21 tects the natural resource base of the

22 land.’’.

Æ