alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 82

John Clark Bridges, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Nos. 20210351 & 20210352

Appeals from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick , Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kiara C. Kraus

- Parr, Grand Forks, N

. D ., for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Tessa M. Vaagen, As sistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N

. D ., for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.1 Bridges v. State Nos. 20210351 & 20210352

Per Curiam

. [¶1] John Bridges appeals from district court orders summar ily d ismissing his applications for postconviction relief as untimely and for lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Bridges argues he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims of newly discovered e vidence. We conclude that Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief were not filed within the two

- year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 01(2). We further conclude he has failed to raise a genu ine issue of material fact of newly discove red evidence , which if proved and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that he did not engage in the criminal c onduct for which he was convicted

. See N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 01(3)(a)(1) ; Johnson v. State , 2015 ND 7, ¶ 7, 858 N.W.2d 632. Accordingly, w e summarily affirm under N .D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SARA HAWES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MACY’S WEST STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 17-cv-754

Judge Timothy S. Black

THIRD AMENDED CALENDAR ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ joint proposed schedule (Doc. 97) and a telephonic status

conference held on May 24, 2021, the Second Amended Calendar Order (Doc. 82) is 

VACATED, and the Court hereby enters the following Third Amended Calendar Order:

Defendant expert report(s)/designation(s) 

for trial: June 3, 2021

Deposition(s) of Defendant’s expert(s): June 17, 2021

Reply in support of class certification and, 

response to Daubert challenges relevant 

to class certification: July 2, 2021

Expert discovery deadline: July 9, 2021

Dispositive motion deadline: 1 July 15, 2021

Responses to dispositive motions: 24 days after dispositive 

motions filed

1 See the Standing Order Governing Civil Motions for Summary Judgment: 

http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/FPBlack.

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 102 Filed: 05/26/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2177
Replies in support of dispositive motions:

Final Pretrial Conference:

Trial date:

17 days after responses to 

dispositive motions filed 

February 8, 2022 at 

10:00 a.m.

February 15, 2022 at 

9:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

5/26/2021 s/Timothy S. Black

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 102 Filed: 05/26/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2178
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1999 FORM 10-KSB OF WASHINGTON BANCORP AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,656
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             901
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,340
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,695
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             761
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               761
<LOANS>                                         73,251
<ALLOWANCE>                                        472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,984
<DEPOSITS>                                      75,689
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,706
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                688
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              190
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 102,984
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,979
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,476
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,455
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,413
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,295
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,160
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      113
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  15
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,363
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         831
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       831
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.31
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       155
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   388
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       47
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  472
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               472
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             38


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700240

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

PARIS T. CARR

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Brian E. Kasprzyk, USMCR.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, Third Marine Aircraft 

Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur 

Lee, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Richard D. Belliss, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 26 October 2017

_________________________

Before GLASER-ALLEN, HUTCHISON, and SAYEGH, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 1 of 7  PAGEID #: 146

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 2 of 7  PAGEID #: 147

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: 148

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: 149

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: 150

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 6 of 7  PAGEID #: 151

Case: 2:18-cv-00052-MHW-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/08/18 Page: 7 of 7  PAGEID #: 152
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4406 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4406

 To render nationals of Israel eligible to enter the United States as 
                  nonimmigrant traders and investors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

  Mr. Weiner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To render nationals of Israel eligible to enter the United States as 
                  nonimmigrant traders and investors.

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

SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS FROM ISRAEL.

    Israel shall be considered, for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(E) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), to be 
a foreign state described in such section (other than clause (iii) of 
such section) if Israel extends reciprocal nonimmigrant treatment to 
nationals of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Subsidiaries

         Headwaters has organized several special purpose entities to facilitate
its alternative fuel business and other business opportunities. The entities are
listed with Headwaters' position and interest in the entity as of December 1,
2000:

*        Alabama Synfuel #1 Ltd., a Delaware limited partnership of which
         Headwaters serves as general partner and owns 100%

*        Utah Synfuel #1 Ltd., a Delaware limited partnership of which
         Headwaters serves as general partner and owns 100%

*        Commonwealth Synfuel, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company of which
         Headwaters is managing member and owns 100%

*        Kwai Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation of which Headwaters is the
         sole stockholder

*        Engineered Materials Exchange, Inc., a Delaware corporation of which
         Headwaters is 96% stockholder
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Earnest J. Matthews v. Sherell Randall

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00019

- CV

Trial court case number: 19

- DCV

- 264316

Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Ben d County

Appellan t Earnest J. Matthews filed a pro se appeal from the trial court’s order signed December 17, 2020 dismissing his suit for want of prosecution

. T he clerk ’ s record filed in this C ourt includes an “ Application to Proceed without Prepay ment ” that Appellant filed in the trial
court on July 11, 2019

. T he cle rk ’ s record does not r eflect that any motion to require A ppellant to pay c osts or a n y contest to A ppellant ’ s declaratio n was filed. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 145(f)

. In ad dition, o n Februa ry 5

, 2021

, A ppellant filed a n “ A pplication to P roceed in F o rma P auperis ” in this Court

. After consider i ng the documents filed in this pr oc ee ding, t h e Clerk of this Court is directed to make an entry in this Court’s records that A ppella nt is allowed to p roce e d on appeal without payment of costs. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145(a); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1.

O n Septe mber 13, 20 2 1 , Appellant filed his appellate brief . The brief does not comply with the relevant r ules in th at it does not :

• contain citations to the re cord, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(d)

, (f)

- ( k ) ;

• contain an appendix, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1( k ) ; or

• contain the identity of parti es an d counse l, see T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 38.1( a )

. A ccordingly, the brief is strick en . App ellant must file a corrected brief in compl iance wi t h Texa s Rule of Appellate Proce dure 38 , inclu ding citations to the record, an appendix, and the identifies of parties and counsel

. The deadline for filing t h e correcte d brief is November 1 5 , 2021

. I t is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica R ivas

- M olloy

Acting i ndiv idually

Date: October 14, 2021
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-86155, 333-86159, 333-45288, 333-63036, 333-91996 and
333-106698 pertaining to the LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1994 Equity Incentive Plan,
LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan, LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1998 Directors' Stock
Option Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option
Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 2001 Stock Option Plan) of Molecular
Devices Corporation of our report dated January 30, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Molecular Devices Corporation
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 5, 2004
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

ANTHONY L. MORRIS, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 1:18-cv-101 

- vs - District Judge Susan J. Dlott 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

Warden, 

 Lebanon Correctional Institution 

 : 

 Respondent. 

TRANSFER ORDER 

 

 With the consent of both of them, the Magistrate Judge reference in this case is transferred 

from The Honorable Stephanie K. Bowman to The Honorable Michael R. Merz. 

April 12, 2019. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:17-cv-00840-MWM Doc #: 111 Filed: 03/25/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2476
Case: 1:17-cv-00840-MWM Doc #: 111 Filed: 03/25/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2477
Case: 1:17-cv-00840-MWM Doc #: 111 Filed: 03/25/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2478
Document Headings

                    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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 23, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (“AIM Photonics”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Buhler Inc. Leybold Optics, Cary, NC; and Spark Photonics Design, Inc., Waltham, MA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 19, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55001).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-00581 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/Michael
      BarthMichael
      BarthChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      12, 2010
Case: 3:18-mj-00082-SLO Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/31/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 60
Case: 3:18-mj-00082-SLO Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/31/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 61
#### Louis J. TRUESDALE, Jr., Petitioner v. James AIKEN, Warden, et al., Respondents.

(347 S. E. (2d) 101)

Supreme Court

July 9, 1986.

ORDER

Ness, Chief Judge:

This case is before the Court on a petition for rehearing. Petitioner asserts he is entitled to have his death sentence vacated on the basis of *Skipper v. South*Carolina, _ U. S. _, 106 S. Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), which was decided while this postconviction relief matter was pending.

*489The retroactive effect of *Skipper v. South Carolina*is limited to cases pending on direct appeal and shall not apply on collateral attack. *See Shea v. Louisiana*470 U. S. 51, 105 S. Ct. 1065, 84 L.Ed.2d.38 (1985); *Solem v. Stumes,*465 U. S. 638, 104 S. Ct. 1338, 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); *McClary v. State,*287 S.C. 160, 337 S. E. (2d) 218 (1985). The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

It is so ordered.
*The Hon. Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
1 The Hon. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. _____________ No. 96-1932WM

_____________ James C. Budd, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the Western District * of Missouri * ADT Security Systems, Inc., * [To Be Published] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 1996 Filed: December 31, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and LONGSTAFF, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. This is an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The plaintiff, James C. Budd, claims that the defendant, his former employer, ADT Security Systems, Inc., has violated the Act by refusing to allow plaintiff to return to his former job as a system-service technician installing alarm systems. The District Court 1 held, on defendant's motion for summary judgment, that plaintiff was estopped to claim that he-2- could perform the job in question, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that, in any case, plaintiff's evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his being qualified to perform the job. We agree and affirm. The able opinion of the District Court thoroughly lays out the facts and discusses the law. We have little to add. It issufficient to say that the plaintiff, in applying for socialsecurity and disability-insurance benefits, both of which were granted, and both of which he is still, apparently, drawing, made representations about his own physical abilities that are completely at odds with the theory of his lawsuit. He clearly represented that he was not able to return to his former job, and he is, in effect, making this representation continuously, because he is drawing the benefits that were granted in reliance upon it. Moreover, even apart from any estoppel theory, it is clear as a matter of law on this record that plaintiff is not able to perform the essential functions of his former job, which was very strenuous, with or without any reasonable accommodation. The fact that the defendant has offered plaintiff other jobs, which he has turned down, does nothing but strengthen the defendant's case. The present appeal does not present any question sufficiently novel to justify more extended treatment. See Beauford v. Father Flanagan's Boys' Home , 831 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 485 U.S. 938 (1988).
Affirmed.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
MPD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0059

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RICHARD LAMAR RUTLEDGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including October 18, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 17 2024

09/17/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0059