alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *Exparte,*Wm. B. Perry *and*Jesse J. Wilson *and Wife.*

*Rule against the master, to shew cause ivhy he had not paid over, the proceeds of slaves sold by him. There being no order of court authorizing hm to malee the sale, it was held that if he had done so, it was an act in his own individual capacity, for which he is not liable on a rule. Evidence could not be received to establish the fact oj his having sold.*

This was a rule against the master, to shew cause why he_ had not paid the proceeds of certain negroes, sold by hit» *51in Í816 under a decretal order of this court, to the late guardian of the complainants or to their attorney. The following are the circumstances of the case:—

In 1813, the master recommended in his report, that the late guardian, John M. Ehrick, should be permitted to sell these negroes *under Ms direction*and vest the proceeds in other .negroes or stock. This report was confirmed and the guardian authorized to make the sale accordingly. The- negroes were not actually sold, until 1816; at which time they were disposed of by the master, during the absence of Mr. Ehrick the guardian at the north, where'he was residing. A hill was filed in 1818, by. William B. Perry against Mr. Ehrick, to account for negroes, which was eventually dismissed by the court •of appeals, on the ground that the negroes were sold by the master during the absence of Mr. Ehrick, and that the proceeds were never received by him or his authorized agent. Under these circumstances the rule was taken out against the master. On the return of the rule, the master shewed for cause by his own affidavit, that there was no order of court requiring him to make the sale, and that he had not done so. The decision of the court of appeals, stating that the master had made the sale, was read to the court to contradict the return; and the complainants counsel offered to prove by further testimony that he had made the sale, and was therefore bound to account; but the chancellor on circuit refused to receive the evidence, and *decreed*that there was no order of court authorizing the sale, and if madevby him it was in his individual capacity, and that he was not liable upon a rule. From this decision the complainants appealed on the following grounds:

1st. Because the master was directed to superintend the sale of certain negroes by the guardian of the complainants:

2nd. Because the sale was made by the master in his official capacity, and purporting to be under the authority of the court:

3rd. Because his honor the presiding judge, decreed that a decision of the cqurt of appeals in which the guardian of the complainants was a party, stating that the sale of the negroes *52of the complainants was made by the master of the court, was no evidence against him, and that no further evidence could be adduced to render him liable in this summary way.

The decretal order of the chancellor on circui't.was affirms ed, by the wholg court.
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.
 Department of Health and Human Services Indian Health Service
 AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Director of the Indian Health Service (IHS), under the authority of sections 321(a) and 322(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 248 and 249(b)), Public Law 83-568 (42 U.S.C. 2001(a)), and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 
                        *et seq.*), has approved the following rates for inpatient and outpatient medical care provided by IHS facilities for Calendar Year 2015 for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and beneficiaries of other Federal programs, 
                        ( print page 18640)
                        and for recoveries under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 2651-2653). The Medicare Part A inpatient rates are excluded from the table below as they are paid based on the prospective payment system. Since the inpatient rates set forth below do not include all physician services and practitioner services, additional payment shall be available to the extent that those services are provided. Calendar Year 2015Inpatient Hospital Per Diem Rate (Excludes Physician/Practitioner Services)Lower 48 States
$2,443Alaska
2,926Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Excluding Medicare)Lower 48 States
350Alaska
601Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Medicare)Lower 48 States
307Alaska
564Medicare Part B Inpatient Ancillary Per Diem RateLower 48 States
516Alaska
956
 Outpatient Surgery Rate (Medicare) Established Medicare rates for freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers. Effective Date for Calendar Year 2015 Rates Consistent with previous annual rate revisions, the Calendar Year 2015 rates will be effective for services provided on/or after January 1, 2015 to the extent consistent with payment authorities including the applicable Medicaid State plan. Dated: December 12, 2014. Yvette Roubideaux, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
 Editorial Note: The 
                        **Federal Register**
                         received this document for publication on March 31, 2015.


[FR Doc. 2015-07779 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-16-P
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement of
Laser  Storm,  Inc. on Form S-8 (SEC File No.  333-03729)  of our report  dated
March 21, 1997, on our audits of the financial  statements of Laser Storm, Inc.,
as of December  31,  1996,  and for the years ended  December 31, 1995 and 1996,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Hein & Associates LLP
HEIN + ASSOCIATIONS LLP


Denver, Colorado
April 9, 1997
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 320 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide that the authority of 

the Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health 

Disparities to make certain research endowments applies with respect 

to both current and former centers of excellence, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide that 

the authority of the Director of the National Institute 

on Minority Health and Health Disparities to make certain research endowments applies with respect to both 

current and former centers of excellence, 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 ‘‘John Lewis NIMHD 

5 Research Endowment Revitalization Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 320 IS

1 SEC. 2. RESEARCH ENDOWMENTS AT BOTH CURRENT AND 

2 FORMER CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. 

3 Paragraph (1) (beginning with ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL’’) 

4 of section 464z–3(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 285t(h)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Insti7 tute may carry out a program to facilitate minority 

8 health disparities research and other health dispari9 ties research by providing for research endow10 ments— 

11 ‘‘(A) at current or former centers of excel12 lence under section 736; and 

13 ‘‘(B) at current or former centers of excel14 lence under section 464z–4.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
RICHARD A. COOPER,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-690

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, M. Blair Payne, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tayo Popoola, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2665

___________________________

Xavier Cravenwolfe

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Robert Carter, ACI Director; Tim Lowery, ACI Furniture Factory Plant Manager;

Randal Raper, ACI Furniture Factory Floor Manager

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: November 15, 2016

Filed: November 29, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Xavier Cravenwolfe appeals after the district court1

 dismissed

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice, following its determination that 

Cravenwolfe failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination, as the record

showed beyond genuine dispute that Cravenwolfe omitted material information that

was required on a grievance appeal form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall

be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 by prisoner until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted); King v. Iowa Dep’t. of Corr.,

598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation

of § 1997e(a)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (prison’s

administrative exhaustion requirements govern whether exhaustion has occurred);

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (proper exhaustion demands compliance

with prison’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules); Chelette v. Harris, 229

F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (inmate’s subjective beliefs about grievance process

cannot excuse exhaustion requirement).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot

Cravenwolfe’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

______________________________

1

The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14
PROMULGATED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ Roger MoodyRoger MoodyChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

S UPREME C OURT C AUSE N O . DA 22 - 0050
J.R. “BOB” EVANS Plaintiff and Appellant , v. FOX ISLAND HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant and Appellee . **ORDER GRANTING MOTION**  **FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION**  **TO DISMISS** Appellant ha s mo ve d the Court for an extension of time to file his response brief to Fo x Island Ho meowner’s Motion to Dismiss . The motion being unopposed, and finding good cause therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s response brief to Fox Island Ho meowner’s Motion to Dismiss is due on or before March 1 , 202 2 . DATED AND ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BELOW

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 17 2022

02/17/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0050
Ex. 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
EduLink, Inc. ("EduLink"),  that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of EduLink
on Form 10-K for the period ended  December 31, 2004,  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the  information  contained  in such report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operation of EduLink.  This
written  statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed  original of this  statement  has been
provided  to EduLink  and will be  retained  by  EduLink  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: November 1, 2006                   By: /s/ Aleksandr Shvarts
                                            ---------------------------

                                            ALEKSANDR SHVARTS
                                            Chief Executive Officer

   Date: November 1, 2006                   By: /s/ Gennady Pomeranets
                                            ----------------------------

                                            GENNADY POMERANETS, CPA

                                            Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael S. Liss, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain 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 thisannual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial 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 inthis annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 29, 2004
Exhibit 4.18

 

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO A LEASE CONTRACT

 

Party A: China Bioway Biotech Group Co., Ltd. (the “Lessor”)
 Legal Address: No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing

 

Party B: Sinovac Biotech Co., Ltd. (the “Original Lessee”)
 Legal Address: No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing

 

Party C: Beijing Sinovac R&D Technology Co., Ltd. (the “New Lessee”)
 Legal Address: No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing

 

Based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit, Party A, Party B and Party C hereby enter into this Supplemental Agreement in respect of matters relating to the lease contract dated August 12, 2004 between Party A and Party B (the “Original Contract”) after friendly consultation.

 

Article 1                 The three parties agree that the lessee of the Premises leased under the Original Contract shall be changed from Party B to Party C.  All rights and obligations of Party B thereunder shall be transferred to Party C from August 12, 2010.

 

Article 2                 In Article 3 of the Original Contract (Rent and Terms of Payment), Article 3.1 shall be revised as follows: “The rent of the Premises shall be RMB3 per square meter per day, or RMB1,357,800 per year.  The rent shall be paid in RMB.”  All other provisions of the Original Contract shall remain unchanged and be implemented in accordance with the Original Contract.

 

Article 3                 The three parties agree that Party B shall no longer have any bearing on the Original Contract after the transfer of its rights and obligation thereunder to Party C.

 

Article 4                 This Agreement shall have the same legal force as the Original Contract.  In the event of any conflict with the Original Contract, this Agreement shall prevail.

 

Article 5                 This Agreement is executed in three originals and Party A, Party B and Party C shall each keep one original.

 

 

	
Party A:
    	
[Chop of China Bioway Biotech Group   Co., Ltd.]
    	
 
    	
Party B:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Party C:
    	
[Chop of Beijing Sinovac R&D Technology   Co., Ltd.]
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Legal
   Representative:
    	
/s/
    	
 
    	
Legal
   Representative:
    	
/s/
    	
 
    	
Legal
   Representative:
    	
/s/
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
(Authorized
   Representative)
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(Authorized
   Representative)
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(Authorized
   Representative)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 20-56022 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02586-AB-RAO
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 4, 2022 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges Bruce Allen appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

# FILED
MAY 4 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d

1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. Summary judgment was proper for the defendants. There is no evidence that the doctors knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Allen’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (setting forth the deliberate indifference standard). Allen’s bare allegations and unqualified lay medical opinions do not refute the defendants’ admissible evidence that they consistently and extensively treated his symptoms and that he was not exhibiting symptoms of Valley Fever for 19 months before the diagnosis. See Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (an assertion that is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it” will not create a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment). At most, Allen presents a difference of opinion between himself and the doctors about the testing that should have been done for his symptoms. Such a difference of opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976); Toguchi , 391 F.3d at 1058; Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED.

2