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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130093 & (22) 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: 130093 

 COA: 264096 

Oakland CC: 2004-194365-FH 

KRIS EDWARD THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 26, 2006, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0907 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 14, 2006 

Clerk
#### Coleman v Lansing School District,

No. 90693;

Court of Appeals No. 131655.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-944]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Nexus 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has applied to be registered as an 
importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 10, 
2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before February 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on October 25, 2021, Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 10300 
128th Avenue, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 53158-7338, applied to be 
registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Controlled  substance            Drug code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remifentanil.......................            9739  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 
research and analytical testing purposes. Approval of permit 
applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is 
consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). 
Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug 
Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for 
commercial sale. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for 
this registration.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-00329 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         32,689
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                      325
<INVENTORY>                                     4,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,020
<PP&E>                                          7,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                  5,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 54,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,582
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            9
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   54,405
<SALES>                                        47,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               47,798
<CGS>                                          17,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,026
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             6,781
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    6,781
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.70
        


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4251 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for payments in lieu 

of taxes for certain Department of Homeland Security land. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2009 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for payments in lieu of taxes for certain Department of Homeland Security land. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

4 SECURITY PROJECTS. 

5 Section 6901(1) of title 31, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ‘‘or’’ after 

8 the semicolon at the end; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4251 IH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(I) that is administered by the Secretary 

4 of Homeland Security and at which individuals 

5 or goods are examined for entry into the United 

6 States.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ANN M. DECORREVONT, Case No. 1:17-cv-0683
Plaintiff, Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL ORDER
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of
Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. 14). The parties have
stipulated and petitioned the Court to award attorney fees in the amount of $3,237.50 and costs
in the amount of $400.00 in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims plaintiff may
have under the EAJA in this case. The parties have stipulated that the award will satisfy all of
plaintiff's claims for fees, costs and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case.

The parties acknowledge that any fees and expenses paid belong to plaintiff and not her
attorney and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that plaintiff owes the United States
under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). The parties further stipulate that after the Court
enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt
subject to offset, defendant agrees to direct that the award be made payable to plaintiff's
attorney pursuant to an EAJA assignment duly signed by plaintiff.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the parties’ joint stipulation for an award of
attorney fees (Doc. 14) be GRANTED and that plaintiff be awarded attorney fees and costs in

the amount of $3,637.50.

pare H/o LB Zloin A Mettowte

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
#### Michael D. FAUGHT *v.*LIGON SPECIALIZED HAULER, INC. and James S. BRADLEY

81-82

619 S.W. 2d 627

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 6, 1981

*Thompson, O’Brien & Martin,*by: *Howard L. Martin,*for appellant.

*Wright, Lindsey & Jennings,*for appellees.

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment in the amount of $2,600 for damages sustained by appellant Faught which he received when appellee Bradley, a driver for appellee Ligón Specialized Hauler, Inc., negligently caused a load of lumber to slip off his truck and crash into the appellant’s automobile. The $2,600 judgment represents a *$2,500*jury award for personal *260injury damage and a @100 award, as agreed, for property damage.

Appellant first argues that the appellee unnecessarily brought the subject of insurance to the attention of the jury by asking appellant if he had made a collision claim against his insurance carrier involving an unrelated accident which occurred several months after the accident in issue. We are unable to reach the issue of whether or not this question was prejudicial within the context in which it was asked because the appellant neither requested that the jury be instructed to disregard the question nor asked for a mistrial. Under such circumstances, alleged prejudicial error is not preserved for purposes of appeal by merely making an objection since counsel did not make known to the court the action which he desired the court to take. Rule 46, Ark. Rules Civ. Proc., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979).

The appellant next argues for reversal that the court improperly instructed the jury regarding the measure of property damages and that a release given by the appellant’s insurance carrier in favor of the appellees was not pleaded as an affirmative defense. These issues are not preserved for consideration by this Court since the record clearly indicates that the appellant agreed and stipulated that the issue of property damage would not be submitted to the jury but, instead, that @100 would be added to any judgment in favor of appellant for all property damage sustained to his automobile.

Further, when the court modified appellant’s requested instruction on the measure of property damages he made no objections as required by Arkansas law. *Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. J. W. Myers,*196 Ark. 976, 120 S.W. 2d 693 (1938); Rule 51, Ark. Rules Civ. Proc., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1974).

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
RAHSON STAPLES, 5 Case No. 1:17-cv-742
Plaintiff, i Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
vs.

CODEY JILLERAT, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 27) AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 8, 2018, submitted a
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 27). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo
all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in
its entirety.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED;


2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10}z hie ‘tend gen Adok

Timothy-S. Black
United States District Judge
Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB Document 114 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB Document 114 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

 Plaintiff, : Case No.3:17-cr-207

 

-vs- : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

ANTHONY MENO, :

Defendant. :

ORDER REVOKING PROBATION/ SENTENCING ENTRY

Defendant appeared before the Court on July 10, 2019 pursuant to a Summons issued

June 1, 2010 commanding Defendant to show cause why his probation should not be revoked as

set forth in the Petition filed June 13, 2019.

Defendant appeared with counsel and after being advised of his constitutional rights,

admitted violating the conditions set forth in the terms of his probation. Accordingly, the Court

found that Defendant violated the terms and conditions of probation and Defendant’s probation is

ordered revoked.

 After allowing Defendant and his counsel an opportunity to make a statement, the Court

proceeded to sentencing. Defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of One (1) day, with

voluntary surrender permitted and no supervision to follow. 

July 15, 2019

 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:17-cv-00437-WHR-SLO Doc #: 48 Filed: 03/14/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 670
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
June 3, 2019
No. 04

- 19

- 00326

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.J., CHILDREN, From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 00096 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights , which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. T he reporter’s record was originally due to be filed on May 28, 2019

. After the reporter’s record was not filed , this court notified the court reporter that the record was due

. In response, the court reporter filed a notice of late record requesting until J une 14, 2019 to file the reporter’s record. The request is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than June 14, 2019

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3( c ). FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE DISFAV ORED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of June, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00544

- CV

In re Estate of J.B. Wells Jr., Deceased

On Appeal from the County Court of Gonzales County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. OTH17

- 9886

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are taxed against the
pa rty incurring same

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 22, 2021
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raj Sabhlok, Chief Financial 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.



|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|/s/ Raj Sabhlok                                                                                            
|Raj Sabhlok Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Corporate Development Date: August 8, 2005
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

CONSENT OF EXPERT 
 We are a firm of
independent petroleum engineering consultants of Calgary, Alberta having prepared reports (“Reports”) evaluating Suncor Energy Inc.’s reserves as at December 31, 2014, as described in the Annual Report of Suncor Energy Inc. on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014. We refer to the Registration Statement on Form F-80 of Suncor Energy Inc., dated October 5, 2015 and hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the
Offer and Circular that forms a part of the Registration Statement and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of references to and information derived from the Reports. 

 

					
	Yours truly,
	
	 SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
 SPROULE
UNCONVENTIONAL LIMITED
 SPROULE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

		
	By	 	 /s/ Scott Pennell

		 	Name:	 	Scott Pennell, P.Eng.
		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Engineering, International and Director


 Dated: October 5, 2015 

Calgary, Alberta 
 CANADA
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51740 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO CAMPOS-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-252

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Antonio Campos-Cruz appeals his guilty plea conviction for being found illegally in the United States and the sentence imposed following a remand and resentencing to a term of imprisonment of 77 months. Resentencing was ordered in light of the decision in United States v. Booker , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Campos-Cruz argues for the first time on appeal that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the district court did not advise him that he could be subject to a two-year maximum penalty if he was convicted under 8 U.S.C.No. 05-51740 -2- § 1326(a). This issue was not raised in Campos-Cruz’s initial appeal and is not within the scope of the limited remand for resentencing. See United States v. Marmolejo , 139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir. 1998). Nor has he shown that the determination of this issue was clearly erroneous or resulted in a manifest injustice, which are exceptions to the limited remand rule. See United States v. Matthews , 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the court will not review this claim. Campos-Cruz further argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on his prior drug-trafficking offense because the Government failed to show that he was actually the person who committed that offense. Campos-Cruz did not challenge the enhancement on this basis prior to his initial sentencing, and he did not raise this claim in his initial appeal. The determination of this issue was not affected by Booker and, thus, was not within the scope of the limited remand. See Marmolejo , 139 F.3d at 531. Nor has Campos-Cruz shown that this enhancement was clearly erroneous or resulted in a manifest injustice. See Matthews , 312 F.3d at 657. Thus, this claim is not subject to review. Lastly, Campos-Cruz repeats his argument unsuccessfully made in his initial appeal that his sentence under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This argument should not be reconsidered in light of theNo. 05-51740 -3- law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Becerra , 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14-9 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 288
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4495 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4495 EH

1 SECTION 1. JIM KOLBE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Pata4 gonia, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jim 

5 Kolbe Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 2, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4495 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice’’. Patagonia, Arizona, as the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post Of- al Service located at 100 North Taylor Lane in
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-080 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

CHAE HARRIS, Warden, 

 Warren Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 DECISION AND ORDER 

 

 This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 57) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Supplemental Memorandum on Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 48) These 

Objections are dealt with in the Court’s Corrected Decision and Order and are hereby expressly 

overruled. This ruling renders moot Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 58) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s denial of extension of time to file objections to the Supplemental Memorandum Opinion 

on Evidentiary Hearing. 

 On May 15, 2018, Petitioner filed his “Writ of District Judge to Review the Entire Record” 

(ECF No. 60). Despite his later objection to the Court’s construing his “writs” as motions, in this 

“Writ” he moves for District Judge review of the entire record. Id. at PageID 3988. As the 

Magistrate Judge has recommended (ECF No. 62), Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 67) are 

without merit and are overruled. 

 Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 63) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Amend the 
2 

Caption (ECF No. 56) are moot because the Magistrate Judge amended the caption back to the 

caption Petitioner used when he filed the case (with the exception of correcting an error in the 

spelling of Respondent’s name). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

June 18, 2018 */Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge