alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
E NEY’ ~ENERAI. 

OF a’EXAS 

GEWLD C. MANN AUSTIN II.TICXAS 

D 

-orable Tom De-, He61b6r 

St&3 Beard of c0latro1 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: OpinionRo. O-3294 

Rer Authority to approve rooounts for 

automobile repair work done for the 

State Park6 Board by a garage ouned by 

a member of the Parks Board. 

He have your letter of ldaroh 17, 1941 outliniag~ the following facts: 

OThe Terns State Parks Board has presented to the Claims. Division of thin Board 

for Lt6 approval certain Invoices for repair work and parts installad in certain 

automobile6 and trucks belonging to the Parks Board.. These iwoioes were rendered bythe J. V. Ash Xotor~ Come of Bastrop, Texan whioh is ,ovmed by I&. J. V. 

Ash, a miimber of the Park6 Board, and have been approved for paym6nt by Mr. Ash 

in his capacity as a member of the said Board. The parts ware billnd at the 

66m6 discount which the State now seoures under it6 auto parts oontract, Iut 

otherwise there was no~oompetitiw element in the trauoaotion astiis Board has 

no meau8 to control labor charges." 

You request our opinion in response to the following questions: 

"1. Can this Board legally approve for psynmnt the above mentioned invoices 

whioh were both rendered and approved w a memtir of the State Parks Board? 

"2. Could this Board legally approve for payment said invoices if they were 

approved by some other member of the State Parks Board thanthe seller himsslf2" 

Liabilities of the kind under ocnsideration are ordinarily incurred 

by the respeotive state Deparhaents. Article 634, ReVised Civil Statutes, 

providing that "The Board of Control shall purchase all supplies used by each 

Department of the State Government" hardly could be said to take out of the 

hands of a department the power to-incur obligations for autcmobile repair 

ucrk. Such is the practical oonstrvotion given by the statute by the various 

departments of the State government owr many yearn. Applying what we haoq 

just said to tlm present case, the purchase of thisrepair work was by the State 

Parks Board, not by the Board of Control. 
Honorable Tom Ib harry, page 2 (013294) 

Such b6iag true,ne ar6 compelled to ad~sethat the olaim may 

not be set up for payment, Mwth6r approved by Mr. Ash or by any other 

mQnber of the State Parks Board, and w.6 anmer both of your quentioas in 

the negative. we enclose aopies of our ~OpiIliOnS Nos. 0-878, &10$4, and 

O-260311 whioh suffioiemfly explain our reason6 for &h6 above holding. 

YOU will note the differenoe betueea th6 faotn ia opinion Ho. O-2SOSA and 

in this OM. There the purohase -6 made w the Board of Control. 

Your6 verytruly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/Glenn R. Lanrls 

Glean R. tii6 

A5.ssist~mt 

GRL: AMM:egr 

APPRUVED APRIL 16, 1941 

/a/ Grovw Seller6 

FIRST ASSISTAN!T 

AT!IOR3EY GENEXAL 

APPROVED 

OpilliOrp comittee 

ByBWB 

ChaiZWl-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTHONY OXENDINE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-229, CA-96-900-3) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Oxendine, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Oxendine Nos. CR-93-229; CA-96-900-3 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
November 8, 2021

Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 

100 East Fifth Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202-3988

Re: William T. Schmitt, et al.

v. Craig M. Stephens, et al.

No. 21-491

(Your No. 20-4025)

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk 

Washington, DC 20543-0001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner, Case No. 3:18-cv-249

vs.

COREY L. GEARHEARDT, District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 5) AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET

This is a civil case in which the Government has petitioned the Court to enforce a summons
issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and served upon Respondent. Doc. 1. The
Government moves to dismiss this action because Respondent has now complied with the IRS
summons at issue. Doc. 5. For good cause shown, Petitioner’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED
and this case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _%- VS" @ LAs

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

GREGORY G WHITE, 

 Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-289 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

- vs - Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, London Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent. : 

RECOMMITTAL ORDER 

 

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF Nos. 8, 9) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Transfer Order (ECF No. 7). 

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be 

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions to file a report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that 

analysis. 

September 21, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
ELEMENT
      21 GOLF COMPANY











January
      4, 2006





Element
      21 Golf Co. (Element) agrees to employ Nataliya Hearn as its President and
      CEO.
      Dr. Hearn will work full time as an independent contractor, while serving as
      President and CEO. The term of employment will begin January 1, 2006 for one
      year, renewable for additional two terms. The total term of this contract is
      three years. During the term of this agreement Element will pay Dr. Hearn
      $20,000 per month in cash/stock or option as requested by Dr. Hearn. The value
      of the shares is set at the closing price of the day of this agreement ($0.08).
      The Element common stock will be issued on monthly basis. Element will reimburse
      Dr. Hearn’s expenses incurred on behalf of Element. Dr. Hearn will also receive
      a stock option package of 2,000,000 per year at an exercise price of $0.08.





Element
      will be able to terminate Dr. Hearn at any time with complete repayment of
      any
      outstanding debts to Dr. Hearn, a cash payment of $500,000 and 10,000,000
      million shares of common stock of EGLF.





All
      stock
      will be issued in whatever name Dr. Hearn and in whatever denominations Dr.
      Hearn requests. All stock issuances will be adjusted for stock splits, dividends
      or other changes to the common stock. All stock issued will be freely tradable
      and issued without restriction. Element will extend any and all indemnification
      rights and D and O insurance (if any) coverage to Dr. Hearn in her capacity
      as
      Chief Executive Officer and President as allowed by law.











/s/Jim
      Morin


Jim
      Morin





/s/Gerald
      Enloe


Gerald
      Enloe
EXHIBIT 1 

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 848-1 Filed: 07/05/24 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 9433
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, Case No.: 2:18-md-2846

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

This document relates to: 

ALL CASES

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 52

Pursuant to agreement by the Plaintiff Steering Committee and Defendants C. R. Bard, 

Inc. and Davol, Inc., it is ORDERED that all cases filed in or transferred to MDL 2846 before

the date of this Order are and will be subject to a limited STAY under the following terms 

pending further notice by the Court, including the issuance of orders that may lift or adjust the 

limited stay as to one or more cases while leaving it in place as to other cases. Cases filed after 

the date of this Order will not be subject to the stay. During the pendency of this limited stay, 

the parties may not take any discovery, file any motion, or seek any relief, pretrial, or trial 

setting, or remand except as provided in the Docket Control Order, Case Management Order No. 

53, or in this Order. During the pendency of this limited stay, there is no obligation for parties in 

affected cases to serve Plaintiff Profile Forms or Defense Profile Forms as provided in prior 

Orders; the parties’ obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, and 

prior Orders related to pleadings, including filing of Short Form Complaints, service of process, 

amendment of pleadings, substitution of parties, and the preservation of pathology materials and 

case-specific records are not affected by this Order.

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 848-1 Filed: 07/05/24 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 9434
The stay may be lifted as to one or more cases at the request of Defendants as outlined in 

this Order in the following paragraph. Defendants must promptly file an individualized notice in 

a case in which the stay should be lifted. The notice should not be filed on the main MDL 2846 

docket. The PSC or individual plaintiff counsel may also seek leave of the Court to lift a stay 

based upon special circumstances or good cause.

The Court anticipates that the stay will be lifted in cases in which the plaintiffs opt out of 

the Master Settlement Agreement. Upon receipt of an opt-out notice, Defendants must promptly 

file an individualized notice in that case. Notices identifying multiple cases to be unstayed, or 

notices filed on the main MDL 2846 docket, will not be accepted by the Court. The Court 

hereby ORDERS that upon receipt of a properly-filed notice by Defendants, the stay will 

automatically be lifted in that case pursuant to this Order. The Court will not file an Order lifting 

the stay in that individual case.

SO ORDERED this ______day of ________________ 2024.

___________________________________

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 848-1 Filed: 07/05/24 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 9435
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 Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer


November 4, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Paula Zelesnik,
Plaintiff(s),

v. Case. No. 1:18cv433
(Black, J.; Litkovitz, M.J.)

GE (General Electric), et al.,
Defendant(s).

ORDER

The Honorable Karen L. Litkovitz hereby recuses herself from the above-
captioned case and hereby transfers the referral of this matter to the docket of Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.
Date_7/A Le Fhe Boot.
awh uly 2,2018 Karen L. Litkovitz fa

United States Magistrate Judge
### P aragraph C ross -Reference s , Docket No. APHIS

- 2006

- 0050

Changes in paragraph numbering of the cold treatment regulations resulting from publication of the technical amendment of August 31, 2007 and the APHIS

- 2008

- 0022

final rule publi shed January 26 , 2010 :

P aragraph numbering in § 305.15 of the cold treatments regulations referenced in the interim rule published on July 2, 2007 Paragraph numbering in § 305.15 of the cold treatments regulations referenced in the interim rule after pub lication of the technical amendment on August 31, 2007

. (Publication of APHIS

-2008

- 0022 on January 26, 2010
, which moved the cold treatment regulations to § 305. 6, did not change this numbering) Substantive changes to interim rule included in final rule

(b)(1) (c)(1) Changed the cold treatment enclosure requirement from maintaining the treatment temperature before the treatment begins to maintaining the highest temperature of the treatment schedule under which the fruit will be treated before the treatment begins. (b)(2) (c)(2) (f)(1) (d)(1) (f)(2) (d)(3)

(f)(3) (d)(4) Changed the precooling temperature requirement from precooling to the treatment temperature to precooling to the highest temperature of the treatment schedule under which the fruit will be treated. (f)(4) (d)(5) (f)(5) (d)(6)

(f)(6) (d)(7) Changed the requirement for password

-protected and tamperproof temperature recording devices to temperature recording devices secured using measures approved by APHIS to ensure the security and integrity of cold treatment data. (f)(7) (d)(8) (f)(8) (d)(9) (f)(9) (d)(10)P aragraph numbering in

§ 305.15 of the cold treatments regulations referenced in the interim rule published on July 2, 2007 Paragraph numbering in § 305.15 of the cold treatments regulations referenced in the interim rule after pub lication of the technical amendment on August 31, 2007

. (Publication of APHIS

-2008

- 0022 on January 26, 2010
, which moved the cold treatment regulations to § 305. 6, did not change this numbering) Substantive changes to interim rule included in final rule

(f)(10) (d)(11) (f)(11) (d)(12) (f)(12) (d)(13) (f)(13) (d)(14)
#### Jefferson v City of Detroit,

No. 90764;

Court of Appeals No. 127765. Reconsideration denied November 25,1991.
<PAGE>


[LETTERHEAD OF SCHERING CORPORATION]


                                                           June 23, 1999

Mr. Randall E. Woods
President and Chief Executive Officer
Corvas International, Inc.
3030 Science Park Road
San Diego, California 92121

RE:      Factor Xa Research Programs

Dear Mr. Woods:

         This "Letter of Agreement" is in reference to the Agreement by and
between Corvas International, Inc. ("Corvas") and Schering Corporation and
Schering-Plough Ltd. (collectively "Schering"), effective as of December 14,
1994, as amended (the "Agreement").
         The current term of the Research Program will expire on September 14,
1999, unless extended by the parties pursuant to the Letter of Agreement dated
December 15, 1998. This is to confirm the parties' agreement to extend until
August 15, 1999 the deadline for notification of extension of the term of the
Factor Xa Research Program.
         Please confirm Corvas' agreement to the provisions set forth in this
Letter of Agreement by signing below on behalf of Corvas and returning one
signed original to Schering.

                  Very truly yours,



                                  LEGAL REVIEW                      LEGAL REVIEW
                  SCHERING CORPORATION               SCHERING -PLOUGH LTD.


                  /s/ DAVID POORVIN, PH.D.           /s/ DAVID POORVIN, PH.D.
                  ---------------------------        ---------------------------
                  David Poorvin, Ph.D.               David Poorvin, Ph.D.
                  Vice President                     Prokurist



Acknowledged and Agreed to CORVAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By:  /s/ RANDALL E. WOODS
   ----------------------
Date:  June 24, 1999
     --------------------


cc:      Corporate Secretary, Corvas International
         Cooley Godward LLP
         Cecil B. Pickett, Ph.D.
         Ashit Ganguly, Ph.D.
         Richard Chipkin, Ph.D.
* 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. 98-11045

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID CECIL FANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-62-A-3

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Cecil Fant appeals his sentence for conspiracy to

defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue

Service of the Treasury Department in its collection of income

taxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Fant has failed to

present evidence to rebut the factual finding that he invited

someone who was not a coconspirator to a “tax protest” meeting

for the purpose of encouraging him to violate the tax laws. See
No. 98-11045

-2-

United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). Nor has

he demonstrated clear error in that factual finding. See United

States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir. 1993). The

district court therefore did not err in assessing a two-level

increase in Fant’s offense level pursuant to § 2T1.9(b)(2) of the

Sentencing Guidelines. 

AFFIRMED.
HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22331 1977HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22332 1977HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22333 1977HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22334 1977
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 31 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to equal rights for men and women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2021 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to equal rights for men and women. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 31 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall 

3 not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 

4 State on account of sex. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to 

6 enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this 

7 article. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con9 strued to grant or secure any right relating to abortion 

10 or the funding thereof. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 4. This amendment shall take effect two 

12 years after the date of ratification.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE LEIGH WHITAKER, 

et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUDGE JOSEPH W. KIRBY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL COMPLAINT

Case No. 1:18-cv-00540-WOB

JUDGE WILLIAM O. BERTELSMAN

NOTICE REGARDING THE STATUS OF WHITAKER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL 

OF HER CHILD’S NAME-CHANGE APPLICATION

After the Court’s hearing on the parties’ pending motions, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

received a letter via regular mail from the Ohio Court of Appeals regarding the 

Whitaker’s appeal, attached hereto as Exhibit A. According to the letter, the appeal will 

not be submitted to the Ohio Court of Appeals for decision until November 21, 2018.

As noted in Plaintiffs’ briefs, delaying resolution of this case pending the 

decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm. Even if 

the Ohio Court of Appeals issued its decision by February 2019—the earliest defense 

counsel suggested the opinion could be released—John Doe will have already had to 

submit his college applications, requiring him to disclose his transgender status, 

resulting in serious harm that cannot be adequately redressed after it occurs. 

Dated: October 26, 2018

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Joshua R Langdon

Joshua R. Langdon, Ohio Bar #90956

Josh Langdon, LLC

[1]

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 309
810 Sycamore Street, Fl. 2

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Phone: (513) 246-1400

Fax: (513) 263-9000

E-mail: josh@joshlangdon.com

Shannon Minter*

Christopher Stoll*

Asaf Orr*

National Center for Lesbian Rights

870 Market Street, Suite 370

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 392-6257

Fax: (415) 392-8442

sminter@nclrights.org

cstoll@nclrights.org

aorr@nclrights.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

* pro hac vice

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua Langdon, Esq., do hereby certify that on this 26th day of October, 2018, I caused 

true and correct copies of the foregoing to be filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing 

service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Joshua R Langdon

[2]

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 310