alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF : Miscellaneous: 1:17-me-00032
THE IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL
NEEDS TRUST :
FOR PAMELA A. SCHERER Judge: Timothy S. Black

ORDER ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PAMELA A. SCHERER

For good cause shown, the Motion Seeking The Court To Establish A Special Needs Trust
For The Benefit Of Pamela A. Scherer is granted. It is hereby Ordered that:

1. The Pamela A. Scherer Irrevocable Special Needs Trust be established by this Court Order
and a copy of this Order be attached to said trust.

2. The law firm of Santen & Hughes shall cause to be distributed through the Defendant the
$68,437.24 less all attorney fees, liens, debts, and costs in proceeds to which Pamela A.
Scherer is entitled to the Pamela A. Scherer Irrevocable Special Needs Trust.

3. The Pamela A. Scherer Irrevocable Special Needs Trust will fully comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396p to protect the interests of Pamela A. Scherer and the
State and eligibility of Pamela A. Scherer for Medicaid and Social Security Supplemental
Income and any amendments thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/28/17 filles 2. Chik

Timothy S. Black \
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GARRISON SOUTHFIELD

PARK LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-783

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CLOSED LOOP REFINING

AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

OLYMBEC USA LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CLOSED LOOP REFINING

AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before this Court is Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC, Plaintiff Olymbec USA 

LLC, and Defendants Kuusakoski, Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Glass Recycling LLC, 

and Vintage Tech’s motion (Garrison ECF No. 788, Olymbec ECF No. 647) requesting this 

Court to hold in abeyance for a period of sixty days the ten-day deadline contained in the Court’s 

September 27, 2021 Order to inform the Court of whether Plaintiffs and the Kuusakoski 

Defendants intend either (1) to accept the Court’s approval of the Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement (Garrison ECF No. 669) on the understanding that the contribution bar 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 789 Filed: 10/04/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 9864
does not extend to claims for express breach of contract and contractual indemnification, or (2) 

to withdraw from the settlement agreement altogether. 

For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS to the extent the parties ask the Court to hold 

in abeyance the ten-day deadline contained in the September 27, 2021 Order. (Garrison ECF No. 

788, Olymbec ECF No. 647.) The Court, however, shall hold the deadline in abeyance for 

TWENTY-FIVE DAYS. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion within the parameters set forth 

in this order. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a notice informing the Court whether or not they 

accept the Court’s approval on or before October 22, 2021. This case is to remain open.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/4/2021 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 789 Filed: 10/04/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 9865
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41475 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR HERNANDEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-98-CR-314-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 16, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector

Hernandez-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Hernandez-Garcia has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief

but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB705]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a joint public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel via 
webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be 
brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if 
appropriate.

DATES: This webinar will be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022, at 9 
a.m. Webinar registration URL information: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5215827395962115339.

ADDRESSES: Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 
Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    The Advisory Panel will receive an update on the implementation 
timeline for Framework Adjustment 34 and Amendment 21. They plan to 
review 2022 scallop workload based on priorities approved by the 
Council at its December meeting and discuss potential timelines for 
completing each task. The panel will review a draft scoping document 
that will be used to assess: (1) The need for a leasing program, and 
(2) what should the leasing program consider. Other business will be 
discussed, if necessary. Although non-emergency issues not contained on 
the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues 
may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council 
action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this 
notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that 
require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to 
take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be 
aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 
1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 5, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00176 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph W. Kaufmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 15, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    JOSEPH W.
KAUFMANN
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  | Joseph W. Kaufmann     
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 429 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

8 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

9 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

10 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

11 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 429 IH

1 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

2 the Court.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

5 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Motion Granted; Dismissed ; and Memorandum Opinion filed September 11, 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00664

- CR

THALIA DE SANTIAGO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 9

Ha rris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1783723



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

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant,
has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opin ion, we grant appellant’s request.
Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and McCally

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

December 23, 2020

a1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2020

161864

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161864

COA: 353493

Oakland CC: 2019

- 271381

- FC

MATTHEW ALLEN WAGNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 16, 2020 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.
# Uradni list C 436/2015

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 436 |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5824. december 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 436

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5824. december 2015

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacije |
| | INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE |
| | Evropski parlamentSvet |
| 2015/C 436/01 | Skupna izjava Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi z Uredbo (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2015 o spremembi Protokola št. 3 o Statutu Sodišča Evropske unije | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

IV   Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropski parlamentSvet

2015/C 436/01

Skupna izjava Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi z Uredbo (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2015 o spremembi Protokola št. 3 o Statutu Sodišča Evropske unije

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

IV Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropski parlament Svet

| 24.12.2015 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 436/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2015

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 436/1

---

Skupna izjava Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi z Uredbo (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2015 o spremembi Protokola št. 3 o Statutu Sodišča Evropske unije (1)

(2015/C 436/01)

Po reformi bo Splošno sodišče sestavljeno iz dveh sodnikov na državo članico. Zato bi morale vlade držav članic v postopku imenovanja kandidatov za sodnike Splošnega sodišča v skladu s členom 254 PDEU čim bolj zagotoviti enako navzočnost žensk in moških, da se doseže enakost med ženskami in moškimi, kar je cilj Evropske unije v skladu s členom 3 PEU.

---

(1)  UL L 341, 24.12.2015, str. 14.

---
# Publicatieblad C 436/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 436 |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 58e jaargang24 december 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 436

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

58e jaargang24 december 2015

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informatie |
| | INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE |
| | Europees ParlementRaad |
| 2015/C 436/01 | Verklaring van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende Verordening (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 16 december 2015 tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 3 betreffende het statuut van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

IV   Informatie

INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

Europees ParlementRaad

2015/C 436/01

Verklaring van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende Verordening (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 16 december 2015 tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 3 betreffende het statuut van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

IV Informatie

INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

Europees Parlement Raad

| 24.12.2015 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | C 436/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2015

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

C 436/1

---

Verklaring van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende Verordening (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 16 december 2015 tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 3 betreffende het statuut van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (1)

(2015/C 436/01)

Aan het einde van het hervormingsproces zal het Gerecht uit twee rechters per lidstaat bestaan. Omwille van de gelijkheid van vrouwen en mannen, die overeenkomstig artikel 3 VEU een doelstelling van de Europese Unie is, moeten de regeringen van de lidstaten daarom bij de benoeming van rechters van het Gerecht overeenkomstig artikel 254 VWEU zoveel mogelijk zorgen voor een gelijke vertegenwoordiging van vrouwen en mannen.

---

(1)  PB L 341 van 24.12.2015, blz. 14.

---
#### STATE v. LOFTIS.

Criminal Law — Repealing Statutes — Punishment Under Repealing STATUTES. — When a criminal statute is repealed by a subsequent act, which is not inconsistent with it, and in which the punishment prescribed for the same offense is either the same as, or less than, that prescribed in the repealed statute, a party committing the offense during the existence of the repealed statute, may be tried and convicted under the repealing statute.

*444Before Gary, J., Laurens, October, 1896.

Affirmed.

*Mr. W. H.*Martin, for appellant.

*Assistant Attorney General*Townsend, contra.

June 26, 1897.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

The “Case” contains the following statement of. facts: “At the October term, 1896, of the Court of General Sessions for Laurens County, the defendant, J. W. Loftis, was convicted, before Judge Earnest Gary, for violation of the dispensary law, on the 20th day of December, 1895, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100, or be imprisoned for the period of three months. Upon the call of the case for trial, and before a jury was empanelled, the defendant, through his counsel, demurred to the indictment, and moved to quash the same upon the grounds that the act of 1894 was superseded and-repealed by the act of 1896, and that defendant could not be convicted upon an indictment charging,an offense committed previous to the approval of the act of 1896 and sentenced under the last act. The presiding Judge held that both acts were of force, and that defendant could be convicted and sentenced under either act.”

The only question raised by the exception is, whether his Honor was in error in overruling the demurrer to the indictment, and refusing to quash the same, upon the grounds that the act of 1894 was superseded and repealed by the act of 1896, and that defendant could not be convicted upon an indictment charging an offense committed previous to the approval of the act of 1896.

The “Case” does not show under what section of the dispensary act the appellant was indicted, nor whether the punishment prescribed by the act of 1896 for violation of the section of the dispensary act under which the appellant was indicted was in any manner changed, so that the Court is unable to ascertain whether it is different in kind or greater or less in degree. The act of 1896 provides that *445all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with it are repealed. If the section of the dispensary act of force when the appellant is alleged to have violated its provisions was not inconsistent with the act of 1896, and if the punishment was either the same under the acts of 1894 and 1896 or diminished by the act of 1896, his Honor- was correct in his ruling. *State*v. Cooler, 30 S. C., 105, and authorities therein cited. In the absence of any facts in the “Case” showing why these principles are not applicable to the present case, this Court cannot say that the Circuit Judge was in error in overruling the demurrer and refusing to quash the indictment.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
<PAGE>



                                                                Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF PHYSIO-CONTROL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

The following is a list of the entities that are wholly owned subsidiaries of
Physio-Control International Corporation, a Washington corporation. If
indented, the entity is a wholly owned subsidiary of the entity under which
it is listed unless otherwise noted. The entities listed below all do
business under the name "Physio-Control."

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

         Name of Organization                                                Jurisdiction of Organization
         --------------------                                                ----------------------------
       <S>                                                                     <C>
         Physio-Control Corporation                                               Washington, USA

         Physio-Control Manufacturing Corporation                                 Washington, USA

         Physio-Control International Sales Corporation                           Barbados

         Physio-Control GmbH                                                      Germany

         Physio-Control Netherlands Services B.V.                                 Netherlands

         Physio-Control s.r.o.                                                   The Czech Republic

         Corporation Physio-Controle Canada                                       Canada

         Physio-Control UK Limited                                                United Kingdom

         Physio-Control Hungaria Kft.                                             Hungary

         Physio-Control Poland, Sp.zo.o.                                          Poland

         Physio-Control Italia, s.r.l(1)                                           Italy

         Physio-Control Medizintechnik Handels, GmbH                              Austria

</TABLE>

(1) Two percent of the outstanding common stock is owned by Physio-Control
Netherlands Services B.V.
# Court of Appeals **First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 15

- 00343

- CV
RHR Partners, LLC

v . The Arena Group, L.P.

NO. 2013

- 25166 IN THE 215TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY FILING $195.00 04/16/2015 NOT PAID ANT


### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas , do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this October 30, 2015

.
Exhibit 23.1
 
              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Point West Capital Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement Nos.
333-21825  and  333-21827 on Form S-8 of Point West Capital  Corporation  of our
report dated February 27, 1999,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of
Point West Capital Corporation as of December 31, 1998, and 1997,and the related
consolidated   statements  of  operations   and  comprehensive  income  (loss),
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended  December 31, 1998,  which report appears in the December 31, 1998,
annual report on Form 10-K of Point West Capital Corporation.

                                                /s/KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 05, 1999